Population Control for Non-Thinkers

People who are afraid of overpopulation seem to be very short-term thinkers. Come 2050 (40 years from now) it will be too late. Population will top out, and will begin to fall. By then, we will be scratching our heads and wondering how it all came to this.

If one looks at population articles by Jonathan Last, one can see where population is headed. Fertility rates have dropped by over 50% worldwide in less than 40 years. Just to replace existing population, the average woman has to have 2.1 children.

One can view the current fertility rate from the CIA world factbook — Country Comparison :: Total fertility rate. As can be seen, already 59 nations (44% of the world population) are seeing less than 2.1, which is the needed replacement for any population. Historically, no culture has ever reversed a 1.9 replacement rate. Because it would theoretically take 80-100 years to reverse a rate of 1.3, it is considered impossible.

In 1970, the average woman had 6 children during her lifetime. Today that global average is only 2.9. Even the United Nations Population Division (UNPD) predicts a further decline to 2.05 by 2050, which is when the total world population would start to decline.

Walter Radermacher (VP of Germany’s Federal Statistical Office) has already admitted his country's inability to reverse its 1.41 replacement rate. This is documented in the above link.

The United Nations has revised its population forecast for 2050. The U.N., which has espoused the overpopulation theory for years, now seem to realize what will happen if nothing is done to stop the drop. But it will be far too late if we wait for the full realization in 2050. Practices such as abortion, sterilization, contraception, “abortifacient” devices, and China’s one child policy have all had a significant effect on the world’s actual fertility rate. Pregnancy is quickly becoming an advantage of the past.

Items such as AIDS, the elimination of DDT (millions get malaria because mosquitoes are not killed), and rescinding the right to bear children all directly affect procreation. And they’re all direct results of human decisions.

Once population decline begins, it will accelerate. Strong evidence shows the most successful and educated in society are reproducing at the slowest rate. The global fertility rate is only half that of 1972. The Empty Cradle (Phillip Longman) describes how population growth is necessary for economic growth. Herein lays the sobering part.

In actuality, seniors are living much longer now than they used to. Together with the recent fertility drops, the ratio of workers to retirees is changing. In 1950 there were 16 American workers for every retiree. There were only three in 2005. The rest of the world is seeing the same increase in the percentage of seniors in each country’s population.

If the world continues to reduce its rate of having children, fewer young will be there to take care of the elderly. The entitlement programs in the U.S. (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are quickly approaching bankruptcy. What cost reductions and expendability procedures will take place? Who will care for the elderly as they age?

As people grow older their ability to procreate decreases. Hence a larger older population means fewer baby-making opportunities. As a result, there’s a more quickly declining population.

With the approaching record federal deficit, and the increased healthcare expenses needed for seniors in the last 25% of their lifespans, at what point are they deemed expendable? From these and other factors, it seems likely the accelerated population decrease may lapse into a population freefall.

One of two scenarios would appear to result from the above picture. 1) The Muslim population, with a high 7.34 fertility rate, dominates and eventually takes over the world, or 2) the world as we know it ceases to exist in a few hundred years.

Certainly, we can open our eyes and look where existing population numbers are taking us. The overpopulation radicals are short-sighted enough not to worry about what happens in 2050. After all, that’s 40 years out.

Amazing how many think that God said [Genesis 1:28] “Be fruitful and multiply.” Actually He didn’t. He said “Be fertile, and multiply.” But so many just decide to just “spit in His eye.”

Much food for thought here, but I’m not sure what “overpopulation radicals” you’re referring to – at least in the Western world, especially Western Europe, it’s been recognized and worried about for many years that population (at least of “native” Europeans) is declining. I remember a news story about an Italian town that was paying its young people large sums of money to have kids.

The situation we are in with dropping fertility rates seems to be getting increased exposure of late. I recently read that Russia was losing 800,000 of its population a year. Closer to home in the U.S. half the states are at a total fertility rate that is less than 2.1.

Too many people consider children a burden whereas they are really the future.

perceptions_now

Whilst I agree that some of these future scenario’s may actually play out, I would pose the question of what happens beyond economics?

There are other questions involving Energy Supply (Fossil Fuels), Food Production & Climate Change, to name just a few, that revolve around Population levels and there are strong suggestions that the total Global population will be very much limited by these and other factors!

Kevin

Perceptions–There are no suggestions that global population will be limited by energy supply. There’s too much oil in the US waiting to be claimed once regulations are curtailed. And that’s not even discussing abiotic oil.

Generally, you’re right about dropping fertility rates. As we end poverty, richer people have better survival rates among children, and so they have fewer children.

But you convinced me you’re not paying attention to the facts and statistics here:

Items such as AIDS, the elimination of DDT (millions get malaria because mosquitoes are not killed), and rescinding the right to bear children all directly affect procreation. And they’re all direct results of human decisions.

There was no rise in malaria because DDT was banned in the U.S. The U.S. hasn’t had malaria for a long time. DDT was never banned in any place that had malaria, if that nation chose to use it.

So, what are you saying, that Africans are too stupid to use DDT if it would save their lives?

I thought this article would be about how to control the reproduction of those who don’t like to think. But I see now, it is about how nature has beaten us to it.

Strong evidence shows the most successful and educated in society are reproducing at the slowest rate.

I guess that depends on how you define successful and educated. Killing off the species is hardly a credit to success by any definition. I take it you don’t mean tribal people who have managed to avoid the grasp of ‘civilized society’?

One of two scenarios would appear to result from the above picture. 1) The Muslim population, with a high 7.34 fertility rate, dominates and eventually takes over the world, or 2) the world as we know it ceases to exist in a few hundred years.

See aforementioned tribal people. I can see them now, heaving a sigh of relief that the insane ones have finally killed themselves off.

Two years ago I was convinced, for a short scary while, that the peak oil/die off overpopulation scenario was inevitable. Now comes the underpopulation theory. I had to look up abiotic oil. Finding out what it meant didn’t fill me with confidence in anything you said in your article, Kevin.

Personally, I don’t believe anyone any more.

zingzing

you know i was excited for a new KR joint. but the man disappointed. except for the line about muslims taking over the world, which was pretty classic KR yum yum. them muslims… if all they need to do is fuck, why they wanna do anything else? next time you encounter a muslim terrorist, kevin, you just tell him to go fuck his wife. wives? meh.

(and what of the illegal immigrants? don’t they produce more kids than us? can we expect that they will overrun us before the moslems? whom do we kill first?)

Well, Kevin, for once you are making sense. I tend not to worry about these long range stats and forecasts. Your own article demonstrates how blind “futurists” really are.

The only thing I would ask you to do is stay away from erroneous translations of Hebrew and the erroneous conclusions you draw thereby. I am a Hebrew speaker and do understand the language. The adjective for fruitful and fertile is the same – purá. It is reasonable to assume that the Divine Command, p’rú urevú can mean either “be fruitful and multiply” or “be fertile and multiply” – or both.

Until we come to these lines in Genesis:

…Rachel saw that she had not born children to Jacob, so Rachel became envious of her sister; she said to Jacob, “Give me children – otherwise I am dead. Jacob’s anger flared up against Rachel, and he said “Am I instead of G-d Who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” [b’reshít/Genesis 30:1-2]

and later on:

…G-d remembered Rachel; G-d hearkened to her and He opened her womb.
[b’reshít/Genesis 30:22]

This indicates that issues of fertility and infertility are in the Hands of G-d, so to speak, rather than in the hands of ignorant men. Abortions, birth control and prohibitions on child-bearing are the work of men. But fertility itself is a function of G-d. Therefore, the more correct translation of p’rú u’revú is “be fruitful and multiply”.

Kevin

Darrell,

No, I’m afraid you’re not thinking too straight. There wasno rise in malaria in the US because DDT had nearly wiped out the malaria carrying mosquitoes. Besides, the US is more than rich enough to pay for the much more expensive alternatives.

DDT was banned un many places, including Africa, where at least there has been 1 million deaths per year. Or didn’t you read?

Africans are not too stupid. Only in your world view. DDT is much cheaper and much more effective that all the other alternatives.

Didn’t have to think that one through. It already happened.

Kevin

Cindy,

Didn’t you hear? Evidently some tribal people are now teaching at our universities.

It sounds like you don’t believe much of anything…

Kevin

Ruvy,

It looks like I’ll have to question your translation of hebrew. In hebrew, the word ‘fruitful’ is not the same as ‘fertile’.

Of course you knew that. Fertility IS in the hands of God. That’s why your quotation does not even remotely apply.

Fertility is dependent upon God. But anything that changes that fertility
is by man’s hands. You can think of a few of them, can’t you Ruvy?

It’s not the same meaning in English most of the time either. However – in certain contexts, the two words can be similes. It’s fairly clear to me that God’s intent, however you translate the word, is the same.

I can’t believe you’re taking on Ruvy over his Hebrew, Kevin. What’s next – confronting Watson and Crick and telling them they’re all wrong about the structure and function of DNA?

I was nice enough not to argue with most of your article cause it sorta made sense. I leave you alone over things you should know, like Catholicism. You should be intelligent enough not to argue with me over Hebrew – which I do know.

The letters peh-vav-resh-heh spell “fruitful” in Hebrew. I had assumed that they were pronounced purá. I was wrong. It is pronounced poréh in the masculine and porá in the feminine. There is another word spelled shin-vav-peh-‘ayin and pronounced shofé’a (the masculine form) and shofá’ah (the feminine form, spelled shin-vav-peh-‘ayin-heh). Both words mean both “fertile” and “fruitful”.

The Biblical Command p’rú, spelled peh-resh-vav is from the same root peh-resh-yod as the word poréh. The root peh-resh-yod refers to, at base, “fruit”. peh-resh-vav-taf pronounced perót means “fruit”. peh-resh-yod, in addition to being the root letters (shóresh) for the idea “fruit”, also means “fruit of”, and is pronounced p’ri.

Your problem is that you are looking at some dictionary or computer program and relying on what it spits out to you without comprehending what any Hebrew speaker must comprehend – that the whole language is based on three letter roots which give the basic sense of what is being written, even though the alef-beit of Hebrew is all consonants. What I’ve been giving you is a brief tour round a tiny part of that root system.

You are blind to all this. And, like any blind man, you feel your way round the horse, and assume it is an elephant – or the other way round.

Ruvy–It was nice enough of you to admit your faults concerning the last column,and your inadequacies with Catholicism, but your insistence that your translation is right over everyone who has translated a Bible is a little over the top.

But the whole point about “sacred texts,” Kevin, is that they’ve always been subject to a variety of interpretations, and will continue to be so. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have the kind of proliferation of diverse faiths that we do. Certain concepts in Hebrew or Greek are simply incapable of being rendered in other languages with perfect accuracy. Consequently, a great many misconceptions/misunderstandings creep in. The first line from the Genesis actually reads, “When God began creating . . . ” which suggests continuous time rather than perfect or pluperfect. Likewise with ha dam – the man – rather than Adam, a proper name, which represents a corruption.

with ha dam – the man – rather than Adam, a proper name, which represents a corruption.

You are trying, and I appreciate the efforts, but your Hebrew is way rusty.

The initial term in the Torah for “the man” is not ha’dám, which means “the blood” but ha’adám the term which later becomes the proper name “Adam” without the prefix ha meaning “the”.

The reason I’m not going hard on you at all is that I know you went to high school here and spoke Hebrew for a while. So your efforts are honest scholarship born of honest learning.

Kevin’s problems are

1.) that he will not list any of these “translators” he refers to with such reverence, and
2.) he forgets or is not aware of the Italian saying, il tradutore è un tradditore – the translator is a traitor. This refers to more than translators purposefully lying and mistranslating.

Since I don’t know which wrist-rapping Catholic Kevin is relying on for his translation, I don’t take it seriously at all. I’d be able to rub Kevin’s nose in his own ignorance if this media supported Hebrew characters, but alas, it doesn’t.

As for Kevin’s complaints that I don’t focus on the gist of his article, he doesn’t seem to comprehend that I agree with the gist of his article. What is inappropriate to it is his assertions about Hebrew – a subject he hasn’t a clue about.

Roger–your limited view of ‘interpretations’ only start at the year 1517. That was when different interpretations of the Bible were first envisioned with different versions of Christianity. But Catholics had the same Bible. The same one ever since 33 A.D. Ever notice how different versions of the same Bible have fewer books, and some different wording? Not Catholic Bibles.

If other misconceptions seem to creep in, why has the Catholic Bible stayedthe same for over 2000 years?

As to the interpretation question, the entire history of Christianity is inundated with schisms from its very inception. There have always been conflicting views, from Gnostic influences, Origen, and the like.

The main purpose of the Diets was to resolve the differences and present a united front. Those who did not go along were labeled as heretics.

Kevin

Ruvy–Your problems seem to be several:

1) I didn’t list any translators with ‘reverence’
2) Your reference to some Italian quote was meaningless at best. It’s difficult to imagine how thousands of translators would lie and fabricate and all decide on the exact same word.
3) Ruvy is highly prejudiced againt Catholics in the first place, so ANYTHING he believes has got to be highly questionable.
4) In fact there are so many translators, it is almost impossible to know every known identifiable name.
5) Ruvy fails to mention that his translation has only been from him.
6) Ruvy never said he agreed with anything in the column, but he expects everyone to know that he agrees with almost everything.
7) It is unbelievable that Ruvy can even talk about what he considers inappropriate. He considers the whole Catholic religion inappropriate. I guess maybe over 2 billion people disagree with that assessment.
8) He doesn’t seem to understand that if the correct Hebrew interpretation of ‘fertility’ was not documented for over 2000 years in most Bibles that exist, the all those Bibles, all those translators, all those that read those Bibles, somehow got something wrong.

He still hasn’t provided one source he has which backs what he said. Go figure…

Seeing that the earliest book of the New Testament – James – wasn’t written until around 45 A.D.; that the latest – Revelation – was penned around 95 A.D.; and that the Council of Carthage didn’t finalise the New Testament we use today until 397 A.D., that’s quite a feat.

What makes Kevin’s claim to authoritativeness even more ridiculous is that different Roman Catholic Bibles don’t even use the same word.

For example, the New American Bible uses ‘fertile’, whereas the New Jerusalem Bible, which is the most widely-used English-language Catholic Bible outside the US, has ‘fruitful’. (I tried posting links, but Akismet threw a hissy fit. They’re easy enough to look up, though.)

Is Kevin seriously suggesting that his version is correct while all other Catholic Bibles are wrong?

Plus, it’s rather pointless. Fertility is a natural state, whereas fruitfulness implies a measure of choice.

If Kevin’s right, God might just as well have said, “be bipedal”. 🙂

zingzing

wow. they certainly had some fast turnaround time back in the day for biographies. jesus is barely cold (ha) and he’s already got a book out. 33 ad… jesus, kevin, seeing you worm your way out of this one is going to be entertaining.

Kevin

Roger–I think you know what I referred to.

And there you go again like Ruvy, lumping all Christian religions as one entity. Catholicity is much different. One of the differences is it started at Pentacost.

All Christians believed the same thing until 1517. Do you even know what ‘heretic’ means?

I guess your decisions of what the Bible should be like are just that–thoughts. There’s only a few books of the Bible that are even close to being poetic (i.e., Psalms, etc…).

Viewing the Bible as only ‘literature’ shows a short-sightedness that only few have. Who has ever viewed ‘rules on how to live’ as poetic?

Kevin

Roger-Just in case you don’t know what I was referring to, it’s your use of ‘corruption’ relating to the use of ‘Adam’.

I honestly feel sorry for this guy. Here he writes a good article about the fact that those pissing ninnies who keep warning us of a population explosion are wrong. He makes good points that any intelligent person should consider seriously.

I tell him that. And I ask tat he refrain from inaccurate translations of a language he does not know.

Not only does he not have the sense to listen to a Hebrew speaker who absorbs the Torah as he reads it (rather than needing to translate as he used to), he argues with other Christians and fallen away Christians who know the history of his own church better than he!

With each successive comment he makes here, he kills his own credibility more and more.

The painful part of all of this is that Kevin’s article – minus its inappropriate observation about what the Torah is telling us – is NOT

It seems that my comment was cut off for some reason or another. That last sentence was supposed to read:

The painful part of all of this is that Kevin’s article – minus its inappropriate observation about what the Torah is telling us – is NOT ineffable twaddle. It would be much more pleasant cutting Kevin down to his appropriate size if it were.

I should have said Wisdom Literature, perhaps, to be clearer – quite a common term and conception, as per the following, for example.

Also, you might take a look at The Literary Guide to the Bible, Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, ed. (see the link), an excellent collection of articles on a number of key Old and New Testament texts.

Even if you don’t agree, it’s a fun reading.

Kevin

Ruvy, the unassailable. How quaint.

It’s amazing that if Ruvy makes a comment that an article is good, but follows it with a diatribe that a particular translation is wrong, then it does seem obvious that he has forgotten the point of the column in the first place.

Then he says that I make comments about a language I do not know. He’s probably smart enough to realize that I do no have to know it. Evidently he knows more Hebrew than the thousands who have translated the Bible into English.

Wow, I bet a few hundred of those translators were even originally Hebrew themselves!

Gosh, I bet the translation of the Torah he might have may even be a translation itself. Or even a translation of a translation!

Why does he continually fail to mention that everyone who has translated it to a Catholic bible translates words one specific way. But he’s got his own translation, because he knows Hebrew the best of anyone.

He talks about arguing with Christians, but who exactly IS a Christian that comes on the net to argue? He doesn’t know though.

He says that I’ve called the Torah ‘ineffible twaddle’. Never did I say that. In fact, any part of the Old Testament is part of the Catholic Bible anyway.

Someone needs to tell Ruvy that God can add to the Old Testament if He wants to. Maybe Ruvy has already closed his mind to God’s ability to do anything.

We still hope and pray that God will alter Ruvy’s hardened mind. With God, anything’s possible.

Kevin

Roger–I looked though your link to that book about the Bible and how it was somwhat ‘poetic’ in nature.

As I said, the ‘poetic’ books are far and wide the vast minority of books in the Bible.

Bottom line, in Genesis, God did not want to exercise ‘reiteration’. He wanted to tell people to be “fertile and multiply”.

Maily because “be fruiful and multiply” brings in a whole array of possibilities. I can be very fruitful and not have any children. But God wanted man to be fertile and have many children. Being ‘fertile’ is the way you do it. Being ‘fruiful’ can mean something entirely different.

Actually, you know, reading Kevin’s comments make me feel sorry for his wife or loved ones. Arguing with a guy who never understands what you are saying, and distorts what you do say, must be very frustrating indeed!

With each comment you make, Kevin, you kill the credibility of the argument you make in your article. Even this reader has to wonder if you came upon the reasoning in it by a fluke of nature.

47 -“Be fruitful and multiply” (from the Latin Vulgate: Benedixitque illis Deus, et ait: Crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram) certainly does bring in a whole array of possibilities, as you mentioned. I feel confident that the headmaster is encouraging his young charges to “crescite” now, and to wait for marriage before obeying the “multiplicamini” command.

There’s another point, too, Irene. The Bible, just like all “eternal” texts, is full of deep meanings, a many-layered as it were. And a certain ambiguity is necessarily built in. So while there is no question that “be fruitful” denotes, among other things, the rather notion of fertility, it is, at the same time, a more encompassing notion – suggesting that we be productive, prosperous, etc., as well, and THEN multiply. Which is essentially what you’re saying too.

But anyway, Kevin’s article got us all thinking.
Someone told me about a movie he saw recently, can’t remember the name…

Irene Wagner

…but the idea was the military had gone to great trouble to find a man whose IQ was completely right-on-the-mark average. He was put in a time capsule, or some such thing, and when he got back into circulation…

…he found himself in a world in which he was hailed as an intellectual giant. Most of the +1st and +2nd standard deviation folks had decided not to have children, and after a few generations, that’s what happened.

Moral of the story: I dunno. A world like that might could be kinda nice. Gotta go, Rog.

I went to your link. The particular Hebrew plural term concentrated upon in it had been bothering me for quite some time. It turns out that Zecharia Sitchin had that one worked out a long time ago.

Much of the stuff in that link dealing with Hebrew is just plain nonsense. It’s the viewpoint of an outsider looking in and trying to figure it out. The blunt fact of the matter is that both Hebrew and Aramaic are very hard to translate into Indo-European languages. You have to learn to absorb the stuff, rather than translate it in your head, and that takes several years to learn how to do. Te way a Semite puts thoughts together is entirely different from the way a European puts thoughts together. In one of my comments I linked to a song ein li éretz aHéret. Go watch it and unrustify your Hebrew a bit – and see how differently Semitic languages put thoughts together.

Kevin

Ruvy–Sorry, but whatever you say doesn’t hold much water anymore. Especially with all the times you’ve gone off the ‘deep end’ with some responses.

Seriously, have you ever ben accused of having multiple personalities??

Kevin

Irene and Rog–you guys have any Catholic Bibles around? Ever read any of them?

Um, the Roman and Eastern Churches had been going in considerably different directions long before 1517, Kev. Then there’s the Ethiopian Church… the Coptic Church… the Assyrian Church…

Don’t leave out the Armenian Church which is the oldest among Christianity. Their writings are being studied at Oxford and are found to be the most consistent with the early Greek Christian writings. Looks like the Vatican and Jolly King James got the Bible verses all wrong. So what else is new?

I think Silas was talking about some movie, but Zing thought it was schmaltzy.
Yes, I was talking about August Rush. I know, it’s schmaltzy, the acting is marginal but it is just too damned cute for words. Makes me tear up every time. Almost as much as Reagan’s tear down this wall! speech.

I got carded not too long ago. Surprised, I asked why? She replied, to see if you qualify for a senior citizen’s discount. And what kind of resources is Roger using which requires an identification?

Irene Wagner

Well, I’m going to a Christmas concert now, and I’m guessing, Kevin, it probably features at least one or two pieces written by Catholic composers, and some by Protestants. You should go to something like that. Merry Christmas! Bye.

I wasn’t vouching for the authenticity or accuracy of the source, Ruvy. And yes, I’m well aware that the business of translating from one language to another is full of pitfalls. You’ve got yo be a master of at least two.

Chris, it comes as no surprise that your rhyming skills are on a par with your reasoning ability. Don’t give up your day job!

[Ruvy closes his copy of “Copy and Grow Rich” (Dewey Cheatam & Howe, New York, NY, 1978) and goes to brew himself a cup of coffee to drink and contemplate the pleasures of “Population Growth for No-Thinkers”….]

One day, you will learn to treat the adult commenters with a bit of respect (I realize the teenagers with their comments can engender a certain amount of, shall we say, contempt?)

The truth of the matter is that the person who most matches you in his commenting style is Kevin Roeten. Like you, he is unable to admit he is wrong, like you, he purposefully misunderstands what others say, and like you he is contemptuous in his dismissal. You haven’t written enough articles to display your own ignorance in the comment section, so I can’t compare you to Kevin that way. Perhaps you are a bit smarter than he is. G-d and religion has nothing to do with it. The two of you are remarkably alike.

Contemptuous dismissal – that is something I learned how to do on paper (or on pixels) from you, Chris. I didn’t used to know how. I had to learn it from your contemptuous attacks on me. So, I do owe you something other than the occasional technical assistance you render.

You think you know an awful lot but the truth is you come across as just a noisy Geordie who thinks he knows an awful lot.

Ruvy, you are at your funniest when you try to express yourself reasonably, rather than the foaming at the mouth manic web preacher you normally go for!

To refute your reasonably expressed complete and utter fabrications one by one; I admit I’m wrong several times a day, either in real life or online. YOU may not have seen it yet but I’m rarely wrong when rejecting your faith inspired apocalyptic views or arrogant assertions and you don’t really pay attention to anything else other than that.

I never purposefully misunderstand what others have to say, nor do I even understand why anyone would want to do that. Apparently it is something that you are more familiar with, so I assume it is something you do; personally, it goes against my way of thinking.

I am contemptuous of you when I dismiss your remarks because they are either completely unfounded, offensively arrogant, mindlessly ignorant or repugnantly bloodthirsty, sometimes all of those at once. I do however respect your right to believe whatever you want, even if it is demonstrably absurd.

In fact, I would go further and say it is you that is arrogantly contemptuous as your dogmatic faith doesn’t allow you to consider the possibility of actually being wrong, whereas it is inherent in the processes of reason to question things.

I don’t know what you are trying to express with your remark “You haven’t written enough articles to display your own ignorance in the comment section”, so I’ll let that one slide on the grounds that there is no point in trying to respond to incoherence.

You mastered contemptuous dismissal long before you ever found your way to Blogcritics, Ruvy. You’ve done it with old friends and family, never mind with people you will almost certainly never meet, so it is yet another fabrication to say you learned it from me. You learned it along with the superstitious nonsense you believe in, indeed, I suspect it is one of the reasons it appealed to you as it makes you feel special to be one of the chosen ones.

I don’t think I know an awful lot at all, indeed I often find myself feeling embarrassed at my ignorance, but I am willing to open myself to information and learning, something faithists can never do. Indeed, my Twitter bio is “Still learning after all these years”, something I am genuinely pleased about. Somebody smarter than me once said “there are no stupid questions, just stupidity in not asking them” and that is something I agree with completely.

Finally, I am not a Geordie (or from the Isle of Man as you posted last week) and have never even been to the north east of England yet, something I must put right one day.

Hmm, let’s tally up, Ruvy 0 Chris 5 or, if I am to be generous, Ruvy 1 Chris 4, for I did admit to being contemptuous of your particular views, which have no provenance and only seem to benefit the other members of your extremist little sub-cult.

*Raises back of right hand to forehead with index finger pointing upwards and thumb perpendicular to it*

dave

Is the Proposed Trans Global Highway a solution for population concerns and global warming?
One tremendous solution to future population concerns as well as alleviating many of the effects of potential global warming is the proposal for the construction of the “Trans Global Highway”. The proposed Trans Global Highway would create a world wide network of standardized roads, railroads, water pipe lines, oil and gas pipelines, electrical and communication cables. The result of this remarkable, far sighted project will be global unity through far better distribution of resources, including including heretofore difficult to obtain or unaccessible raw materials, fresh water, finished products and vastly lower global transportation costs.
With greatly expanded global fresh water distribution, arid lands could be cultivated resulting in a huge abundance of global food supplies. The most conservative estimate is that with the construction of the Trans Global Highway, the planet will be able to feed between 14 and 16 Billion people, just using presently available modern farming technologies. With a present global population of just under 7 billion people and at the United Nations projection of population increase, the world will produce enough food surpluses to feed the expected increased population for the next 425 years. Thomas Robert Malthus’s famous dire food shortage predictions of 1798 failed to take into consideration modern advances in farming, transportation, food storage and food abundance. Further information on the proposed Trans Global Highway can be found here.

Kevin

Dave,

Population concerns stem from the basic replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. By the year 2050, that global rate will likely be well below 2.1.

I’m afraid no ‘highway’ will aid people in bringing the rate back up.

Not only that, but it’s finally been agreed upon that global warming and cooling is a result of natural phases in the universe, and has nothing to do with CO2 production.

it’s finally been agreed upon that global warming and cooling is a result of natural phases in the universe, and has nothing to do with CO2 production.

Agreed upon by who? Kevin and his buddy Phil, this morning at the water cooler?

Or did I miss the screaming banner headlines which must surely have dominated every media outlet when this news broke?

Doug Hunter

“it’s finally been agreed upon that global warming and cooling is a result of natural phases in the universe, and has nothing to do with CO2 production.”

That’s simply not true or physically possible. Everyone knows that CO2 will raise the temperature a degree or so over 50 or 100 years, which of course can’t be felt by the average person and will be utterly undetectable at any one spot as local and regional variations drown out such things at tenths of degrees, during this time the sea level will continue to rise (beyond the hundreds of feet it already has in the 10k years since the last ice age let go) maybe 10 inches or so by 2100. Apparently, humans have become so weak and incapable that with 100 years notice to adapt these changes will still be sufficient to utterly destroy civilization as we know it, and according to some, even drive extinction of humans… unless of course you give up your car, and affordable heating, and amenities of life plus lots and lots of tax $$$ funneled to the politicians/elites/green peddling businessmen. They get richer, you get poorer, and you get to feel good about saving the planet from the crisis that never was.

The fact that CO2 is a mild, trace greenhouse gas does not indicate any specific polical solution, although the people that are anti-business, pro-government/taxation, and for wealth redistribution latch onto this as if the answer is clearly to regulate business, increase government/taxation, and redistribute wealth… surprise, surprise.

Kevin

Dreadful and Hunter:

Because you both are highly ignorant of recent scientific findings, read “Climategate” by Brian Sussman, Meteorologist out of San Francisco. Then get back to me.

Kevin, you’ve shown yourself in the past to be impervious to logic, but we’ll try again just for the exercise.

Your claim that “it’s finally been agreed upon” that global warming is natural and has nothing to do with human CO2 output is absurd. Saying that an issue this complex is settled based on a few people with no standing to make such pronouncements is more than absurd; it’s infantile.

It’s like saying that back in the 1980s the world agreed to total nuclear disarmament because a few cities declared themselves “nuclear-free zones”.

Or, to toss another example out there which I’m sure you’ll find ridiculous, saying that it’s finally been determined once and for all that Jesus was not the son of God based on the writings of this guy.

Of course that doesn’t count the >300 footnotes of various sources he lists an his book with people backing up every claim he makes.

Very well. How many of those footnotes are citations of peer-reviewed papers authored by climatologists?

That also doesn’t count Matt Dempsey, Marc Morano, Sen. Jim Inhofe

None of whom are climate scientists, or in any way qualified to make that determination.

and most of the existing climatologists that exist today saying that AGW is a belief of the past.

You are totally, utterly, absolutely and in all other possible ways wrong.

Kevin

Dreadful,

I guess I’m impervious to YOUR logic, but I guess you’re made the assumption that you’re always right about climate change.

Why don’t you send me your e-mail so I can shoot some of this info to you?

Sussman, Dempsey, Morano, and Inhofe (despite being meteorologists and congressmen) likely know more scientific climatologists than you and I will ever know in our lifetime. You knew that, right?

You’ve never read Climategate, have you? You live on the ‘Left Coast’, don’t you? You have no idea that Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ was totally debunked, do you?

You have no idea what solar radiation, sunspot cycles, insolation, the Carboniferous Period, the Hale Cycle, the Gleissberg Cycle, or the Suess Cycle cycle is, do you?

I thought not. If you want to be educated, just send your e-mail. I’ll make sure you’re up-to-speed.

I guess you’re made the assumption that you’re always right about climate change.

I said no such thing. I’m merely challenging your assertion that there is a consensus that anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate. If there is such a consensus, then it should be all over the scientific literature, not to mention all over the news. It would be a highly momentous event.

Why don’t you send me your e-mail so I can shoot some of this info to you?

No thanks. However, it is possible to post links right here in the comments space. I imply by your offer that most of “this info” is already in electronic format, so it should be quite easy to do. That way, too, others besides myself can read and comment.

Sussman, Dempsey, Morano, and Inhofe (despite being meteorologists and congressmen) likely know more scientific climatologists than you and I will ever know in our lifetime.

And I know the Bishop of Liverpool. That doesn’t make me an expert on the Church of England.

You’ve never read Climategate, have you?

No.

Have you ever read any climatology papers?

You live on the ‘Left Coast’, don’t you?

So does Anthony Watts. And?

You have no idea that Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ was totally debunked, do you?

You have no idea what solar radiation, sunspot cycles, insolation, the Carboniferous Period, the Hale Cycle, the Gleissberg Cycle, or the Suess Cycle cycle is, do you?

You have no idea how any of these phenomena explain the current warming episode, do you?

I thought not.

For someone who loves to accuse others of making assumptions, you leap to a heck of a lot of them yourself.

Kevin

Dreadful,

How pitifully sad you’re so worried about sending your e-mail over this thread. Are you somehow worried that what I send will be so overwhelming that it’ll totally cave your worldview?

Of course this info is on the e-mail. All you have to do is access it. I’ve got it all together right here to save you time. Will you actually access any of it? The probability is 99.06% that you won’t.

You’ll have to let me know why others have to read my sources, although you could easily copy them on anything I send, and comment as well. You’ll have to let me know how I will be able to post all the links I have.

Even though I’ve read many climatology papers, I see you haven’t. You had never even heard of one of the cycles I mentioned.

You can tell I’m not on the ‘left coast’ as you, because I have no idea who ‘Watts’ is.

If you ever read Climategate, I guess you would know how Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ was widely debunked.

All of those cycles are responsible for cooling and warming. But NONE of it is because of man.

I said “I guess…” about your assumption, but it looks like my guess was right on.

Of course this info is on the e-mail. All you have to do is access it. I’ve got it all together right here to save you time.

And once you have, and understood why I can’t give you my e-mail address, perhaps you will reconsider posting a link here instead. If you do, I’ll take a look.

Although I suspect that it will consist (like most of your previous comments on this exchange) of what has been termed the Gish gallop, a tactic which involves throwing such an enormous volume of questions, challenges etc at your opponent all at once that he cannot possibly answer them all – whereupon the galloper pretends that there actually are no answers and claims victory.

Even though I’ve read many climatology papers, I see you haven’t.

I have, and have cited several (I’m not surprised you ignored them). Can you point us to a few that you’ve read, and explain how they support your contention that there is a consensus about the current warming not being anthropogenic?

You had never even heard of one of the cycles I mentioned.

You are wrong (BTW, insolation is simply a measure of how much solar radiation a given surface receives, and the Carboniferous period is not a cycle). They have indeed all been identified as factors in past climate change. That doesn’t mean they are causing the current warming.

I have no idea who ‘Watts’ is.

Seriously? For someone who claims to be well-versed in climate science and climate change skepticism, I find it surprising that you are unaware of the publisher of the most prominent “skeptic” blog. And astounding that your “expert”, Sussman, apparently failed to mention him in his book.

If you ever read Climategate, I guess you would know how Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ was widely debunked.

Sussman is not the first, or even the ten thousandth, to have attacked the hockey stick. I’m well aware of the many vociferous claims of “debunking”, and as I pointed out with the help of my earlier citation, they are spurious.

All of those cycles are responsible for cooling and warming. But NONE of it is because of man.

Then why don’t you explain how it is that the billions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere annually by humans is having no effect whatsoever?

Kevin

Dreadful,

I guess the only reason you would not give your e-mail was out of fear that I might do some harm to your computer. Not possible. What were you thinking?

Hey, didn’t you know that the billions of tons of CO2 going to the atmosphere annually is being sucked up by the plant world as food? Wow, did God make a world or what?

From looking at the preview, it seems they cut this thread way short. But you can still access this. A simple message with your e-mail so I can send the rest of this. But will you?

Washington DC: Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.

Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC’s fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” [Also See: The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports here & here –More analyses of recent developments see report’s introduction here. ]

“I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues,” noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros on March 3, 2009. Cuadros is of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers.

Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences lamented the current fears over global warming.

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.

‘Could turn the climate change world upside down’

The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire “predictions” of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man-made global warming fear activists. The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters is being touted as a development that “could turn the climate change world upside down.” The study finds that the “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift.” The March 15, 2009 article in WISN.com details the research of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said. “I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing,” he added.

Tsonis further added: “The temperature has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.” [ See also: Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades’ study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 ]

Climate ‘primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms’

Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, also declared natural factors are dominating climate, not CO2. “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms,” Douglas, who is releasing a major new paper she authored that will be presented at a UNESCO conference in Ghent, Belgium on March 20, 2009, told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 10, 2009.

Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author of more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, also now points to natural causes of recent climate changes. “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities,” Vaughan told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009.

Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d’Annunzio in Italy, the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists also agrees that nature, not mankind is ruling the climate. “I think that climatic changes have natural causes according to geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming,” Crescenti told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.

UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!” Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, says the international promotion of man-made global warming fears are nearing their end. (Note: Bellamy was in the original 2007 U.S. Senate report.] “The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,” Bellamy, who used to believe in man-made warming, declared on November 5, 2008.

‘Journalistic malpractice’

Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane, squarely blames the media for promoting unfounded climate fears. “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice…the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical,” Chapman wrote on January 13, 2009.

Full Text of the 59 additional scientists’ remarks begins on page 70 of report:

The new scientific report “directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC Summary that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous and unprecedented warming.” – Quantitative Economist Kenneth A. Haapala, the past president of the prestigious Philosophical Society of Washington, the oldest scientific society in Washington (founded 1871), has reviewed hundreds of reports based on quantitative techniques. Haapala co-authored the report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”

“I think that climatic changes have a natural causes according many geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming.” – Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d’Annunzio in Italy is the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists.

“I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science…There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” – Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies.

“The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice…the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical.” – Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane.

“Once again we have misleading climate change pronouncements being based on data errors, data errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers…This is exactly what happens when you base your arguments on ‘consensus science’ and not scientific fact.” – Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, a mathematician, computer programmer, and engineer, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics simulations. Hoffman co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth, described as “bringing a dose of skeptical reality to climate science and the global warming debate.”

“The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” – Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA’s top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world’s first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new skeptical book The Resilient Earth.

Belief in climate models compared to “ancient astrology”… “I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate.” – Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology who’s research “focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.” compared climate models to “ancient astrology.”

“The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” – Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has worked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

“The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.” – Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers.

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” – Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society

“If global cooling will come soon — scientists will lose trust ” – Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, was decorated with the Medal of Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, specializes in the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change.

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.” – Materials and Research Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, a former Department of Navy research physicist who has published more than 25 scientific papers specializes in spectroscopy, microscopy, thermal analysis, mass spectroscopy, and surface chemistry.

“The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what’s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists.” – Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and reports, and authored the 2001 Version of the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of space-based research.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made…Hansen embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming.” – Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, a former supervisor of NASA’s James Hansen, and the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch.

“I am pleased to be considered a ‘denier’ in this cause if this puts me in the class with those who defied prevailing ‘scientific consensus’ that the earth was flat and that the earth was the not the center of the universe.” – Retired U.S. Air Force (USAF) Meteorologist William “Bill” Lyons, of the USAF’s Global Weather Central at Strategic Air Command.

“I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues… Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation.” – Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers

“It is amazing to me, as a professional geologist, how many otherwise intelligent people have, as some may say, ‘drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid’ concerning global climate change.” – Professional Geologist Earl F. Titcomb Jr. has co-authored analyses of geological and seismological hazards.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.’” – Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

“Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” – Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

“My dear colleague [NASA’s James] Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end… The global warming ‘time bomb,’ ‘disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.’ These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist.” – Chemist Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry Department

“There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC…The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” – Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publications who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.

Other scientists added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report since its initial December 11, 2009 release include the following: Full Text of the 59 additional scienists’ remarks begins on page 70 of report: Geologist Dr. Lloyd C. Furer, a past Associate Scientist and Visiting Professor at Indiana University who served as a meteorologist for the U.S. Air Force and has authored more than 35 publications; Physicist and environmental activist John Droz, Jr., who holds a graduate degree in physics from Syracuse University; Geologist Dr. A. Neil Hutton, former District Geologist for Northwest Territories and the Arctic Islands and former Assistant Chief Geologist for the Western Canadian Basin; Professional Geologist Gary Walker, a member of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists; Ohio’s NBC 4 chief meteorologist Jym Ganahl who was the youngest person to be granted the American Metrological (AMS) Seal of Approval; Dr. Jim Buckee, who holds a PhD in Astrophysics from Oxford University, lectured about climate change at the University of Aberdeen; Geologist Allan Shepard, former Chief Geologist for Amoco International and member of the Association of Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta; Physicist Gary M. Hoover, a consultant with research and operational experience in atmospheric energy absorption, nuclear reactor operations and exploration geophysics; Meteorologist Scott Sumner of North Carolina; Professor Dr. Caleb Stewart Rossiter, an adjunct professor at the School of International Service at American University and a former teacher of quantitative research methods; Chemical Process Control Engineer Dr. Pierre R Latour, who holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering and has published more than 70 publications and managed NASA’s Apollo Docking Simulator development; . Terry Jackson of the Institute of Physics in London, the founder of the Energy Group, and a physics teacher at Belfast Institute Further and Higher Education for 30 years; Certified consulting meteorologist Anthony J. Sadar, co-author of Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry; Physicist Dr. Paul Drallos, who worked as a Post Doc at Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque and at the University of Toledo, formed Plasma Dynamics Corporation, a small research company that specializes in plasma display technology and computer simulation; Surface Chemist Dr. Mark Rose Head of Environmental Quality at Qatar Petroleum who has generated two patents and developed the largest Purified Wet Acid Plant in the world; Geologist Dr. Seymour Merrin, a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and a research scientist; Environmental Chemist Jim Nibeck, who also worked in the biomedical research industry, wrote a 2008 paper on climate titled “Doubt About Anthropogenic Global Warming”; Physicist Jerome Hudson who studies focused on aperture synthesis and optics; Certified Consulting Meteorologist Mike Smith, the CEO of WeatherData Services of Wichita Kansas; Environmental Engineer, James A. Haigh, PE, a Certified Plant Engineer and Licensed Professional Engineer of 36 years who has assisted in the design of Class III Nuclear Valves for Nuclear Power Plants; Meteorologist Tony Pann of WUSA 9 in Washington DC, holds the American Meteorological Seal of Approval; Biologist and Biochemist Dr. John Reinhard, a member of the American Chemical Society who has published 76 papers and currently a scientist in the pharmaceutical industry; Engineer Alan Cheetham has 30 years experience including extensive scientific training, data analysis, modeling and statistics and runs the skeptical website “Global Warming Science”; Chemist Max S. Strozier, who spent 26 years specializing in chemical laboratory analysis, served as a U.S. Department of Defense aerospace chemist and is a former lecturer at San Jose State University and the University of Texas; Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona; CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers, an meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the American Meteorological Society; Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power program; Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam’s Royal Dutch Weather Bureau; MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific; Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers; German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist; Miroslav Kutilek, Emeritus Professor of Soil Science and Soil Physics at Czech Technical University in Prague who specialized in paleoclimatology of soil; Coastal Engineer Cyril Galvin, member of the American Geophysical Union; Nuclear Chemist Gary L. Troyer has worked as an analytical chemist and was a Fellow Scientist at the Westinghouse Hanford Company; Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers;

I guess the only reason you would not give your e-mail was out of fear that I might do some harm to your computer. Not possible. What were you thinking?

I guess you can’t read. BC’s comments policy explicitly asks us not to put personal contact information, including e-mail addresses, in comments. You may have no intention of bombarding me with spam, but you and I are not the only ones who can read this thread.

Hey, didn’t you know that the billions of tons of CO2 going to the atmosphere annually is being sucked up by the plant world as food? Wow, did God make a world or what?

Didn’t you know that CO2 isn’t the only thing plants need for sustenance? Didn’t you know about desertification? Deforestation? Erosion? Soil depletion? Pollution?

In order for your argument to even begin to make any sense, you’d have to show an increase in global plant cover correlating with the increase in carbon emissions which began with the Industrial Revolution – and then demonstrate that all of this extra carbon is being absorbed by the biosphere.

A simple message with your e-mail so I can send the rest of this. But will you?

As you can see from the numerous citations I’ve posted to support my case in this discussion (not one of which you’ve responded to, or likely even looked at), it’s very easy to access global warming information. Since you apparently already have everything in electronic format, I presume that you obtained most of it that way. I find it hard to believe that none of it’s available online, and that you can’t find it.

Your list made me smile. First of all, the vast majority of scientists on your list are not climate scientists – heck, one or two of them aren’t even scientists. Secondly, the series of quotes from some of them are just the same old denier talking points which have been debunked time and again. Thirdly, here’s a more honest picture of what scientists think about climate change. Fourthly, have you ever heard of the appeal to authority fallacy?

I’m still waiting for you to back up your original claim that it was now “agreed” that anthropogenic CO2 is not causing warming.

Tell me: if you were the manager of a company in Tokyo right now, and a group of chemists told you they had “agreed” that it was now safe to let your people back into the building, would you take their word for it? Or would you wait for an expert opinion… like, say, that of a structural engineer?

Kevin

Ever hear of deleting an e-mail so they never send any more messages. Try it.

Didn’t you know that CO2 has nothing to do with the items you quoted? Nice try.

I guess you didn’t hear that when CO2 concentration goes up in history, wildlife, fauna, and plant life increase rapidly.

I guess you also must have missed my column on earth being a ‘Closed System’ and no CO2 is either gained or lost. Too bad…

You must have also been dreaming when I penned the column about the fact that there are more trees in the US now than in Columbus’ time.

The citations you’ve posted do not support anything. From what I’ve read they always put up info that’s been disproved time and time again. Better try again…

Did you read any of my last message? I didn’t put it in [http] format, but I still figured you could access it.

Too bad you didn’t know that the list of scientists I had knew about climate more than anyone. Too bad you didn’t know who the scientists were.

I never said that I couldn’t find anything on line. I said all the information I stated IS on line and you could access it if you had the wherewithall.So you didn’t read much of it, huh?

I said all the scientists I knew agreed. Evidently you may know some rogue scientists.

I wish your last quote made some sense. Maybe you could just look at climate right now, and see what the natural cycles are doing.

Then again, you could decide you were always right and never made a mistake.

And Kevin, you don’t appear to have understood a single one of the points I made in my last comment. Perhaps you didn’t want to.

Didn’t you know that CO2 has nothing to do with the items you quoted?

All of those things have a significant impact on the ability of the biosphere to absorb CO2.

I guess you didn’t hear that when CO2 concentration goes up in history, wildlife, fauna, and plant life increase rapidly.

And when you drink a glass of water, your thirst disappears rapidly. But what happens if you keep drinking – on and on – and don’t stop?

I guess you also must have missed my column on earth being a ‘Closed System’ and no CO2 is either gained or lost. Too bad…

You must have also been dreaming when I penned the column about the fact that there are more trees in the US now than in Columbus’ time.

I guess I must have, since in my dream they appeared on an entirely different website which I do not frequent.

On the ‘closed system’ question, you’re broadly correct (apart from the minimal loss of atmospheric gases to space and the occasional addition of new ones from meteor and comet impacts), but you’re not differentiating between storage media and timescales. The CO2 being added to the atmosphere spent millions of years not being in the atmosphere. It was underground. The problem is that it’s suddenly being added back into the atmosphere – within mere hundreds of years, not millions.

Come on, Kevin, this is not advanced stuff. If you had a plastic bag packed with a few old clothes that you were going to take to Catholic Charities, and I suddenly grabbed everything out of your closet and tried to stuff it all in the bag, what would happen to the bag?

On the trees: perhaps there are more trees in North America now, numerically speaking. However, the continent did undergo massive deforestation after Europeans arrived. The forests of the time contained vast tracts of old growth – whereas the replanted trees are smaller and younger than their predecessors.

How about if I stand you in front of ten monkeys, and then stand you in front of a humpback whale, and we see who succeeds in blowing you over with their breath? I know who my money’s on…

The citations you’ve posted do not support anything. From what I’ve read they always put up info that’s been disproved time and time again.

“From what I’ve read”? How about you read the actual links, instead of letting Brian Sussman tell you what you think?

Too bad you didn’t know that the list of scientists I had knew about climate more than anyone.

Than anyone? That’s an idiotic statement. Who would know more about climate than a climatologist?

Too bad you didn’t know who the scientists were.

Well, then it’s just as well you helpfully appended their fields of specialty, Kevin, isn’t it?

Tell you what: why don’t you go through and count (a) how many scientists are on that list; (b) how many of them are climate scientists?

So you didn’t read much of it, huh?

I think the comments I’ve made on this thread so far, backed up with ample citations, demonstrate my familiarity with the subject matter.

I said all the scientists I knew agreed.

No, you didn’t – you said this, in comment #78: “it’s finally been agreed upon that global warming and cooling is a result of natural phases in the universe, and has nothing to do with CO2 production.” [my emphasis]

Now in my world, that kind of statement means that there is a consensus. From Wikipedia: “Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.”

Not only are most of the scientists on your list not in the relevant field of study, I have demonstrated to you by way of two separate sources that the vast majority of scientists who do work in the relevant field – climatology – remain of the opinion that the current warming is anthropogenic.

Let’s say you’d said something like this: “It’s finally been agreed upon that water does not help to put out fires.” And then I found out that the people who’d “finally agreed” on it were not firefighters, but schoolteachers. I would, even being kind, be speculating rather negatively as to the number of brain cells in your possession.

The consensus you claim, therefore, does not exist.

Maybe you could just look at climate right now, and see what the natural cycles are doing.

I know what they’re doing. Perhaps you can show me how these cycles are currently correlating with global temperatures, rather than just tossing them out there as possible causes of past changes.

Then again, you could decide you were always right and never made a mistake.

Yes, one could, couldn’t one?

As a thought exercise, why don’t you consider what happens if my way prevails and it turns out I’m wrong, versus what happens if your way prevails and you’re wrong?

Perhaps I did understand your points, but they still made no sense. Go figure…

All those things you mentioned have a very minor impact on the ability to absorb CO2 compared to the ones I mentioned. But you already know that!

Good point. If you don’t visit other websites with differing opinions, your opinion will ALWAYS be skewed.

It’s best to think ‘chemically’ about such things. Because the existing carbon is bound up (chemically) with other elements when buried deep within the mantle, it cannot be released to the atmosphere. Perhaps you don’t understand how many compounds carbon can make?

I read links and I read a book by Sussman and he tells me what to say?!? I did read his data on air pollution, air quality, Antarctica, hurricanes, AGW, Arctic ice shrinkage, biofuels, carbon sequestration, carcinogens, climate change, El Nino, Medievil Warm Period, oil reserves, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and about 50 or so others. He was better versed than most climatologists I know.

In fact, being a climatologist in no way ensures that you know what AGW is or does. My daughter is a meteorologist going to NCSU right now. Are you a climatologist or a meteorologist?

You probably realize that a climatologist
could be an expert on many things, and it doesn’t have to be AGW.

Citations on this thread give us your opinion, NOT if the climatologists you cited knew what they were talking about or even if that was their field of specialty.

I guess if you had read my previous e-mail, you’d know that 700 climate scientists were in agreement about AGW–that it was NOT madmade. You didn’t have 700 scientists. Does that mean you were lieing to me?

Now I’ve demonstrated that 700 scientists who know something about AGW do not believe that the warming is manmade. That is a consensus. Maybe not every last scientist–but a consensus.

How many did you have again, Dread? How did you get that name again?

Have you ever heard of past Ice Ages? What about the Medieval Warm Period? All of them directly due to either the 11 year sunspot cycle, the Suess Cycle, the earth’s yearly axial tilt, the earth’s total distance from the sun, etc…, etc…, etc.

I could give you exact cycle times and heating and cooling cycles. But alas, you won’t give me your e-mail. Why don’t you try it just once and see what happens?

Personally, I don’t think you’re one to have never made a mistake. In fact, you’re probably aware of quite a few you’ve made but won’t admit to them. I forget, what do they call those kinds of people, Dread?

A good thought exercise, for those who have no information either way. Fortunately, we know what our climate history has been for the last 600,000 years, we know all the normal cycles (and there are at least 8 of them), we know earth’s changing distance from the sun, we know the total heat output from the sun, we know the sun’s luminosity, it’s likely age before nova, peak time for sunspot activity, date for closest approach, eclipse time and duration for the next hundred years…….. but we still have those who would say earth’s demise will come from AGW.

In fact, being a climatologist in no way ensures that you know what AGW is or does.

Sure, Kev. And being an MD in no way ensures you know anything about the human body.

My daughter is a meteorologist going to NCSU right now. Are you a climatologist or a meteorologist?

Are you? And do you understand the difference between a climatologist and a meteorologist? Do you understand the difference between climate and weather, come to that?

You probably realize that a climatologist could be an expert on many things, and it doesn’t have to be AGW.

Possible. But if true, the same applies to your list to a much, much greater extent. So why do you insist on placing the opinion of, say, a geologist over someone who actually studies climate for a living? Seems to me that you’re cherry-picking.

Citations on this thread give us your opinion, NOT if the climatologists you cited knew what they were talking about or even if that was their field of specialty.

I guess if you had read my previous e-mail, you’d know that 700 climate scientists were in agreement about AGW–that it was NOT madmade. You didn’t have 700 scientists. Does that mean you were lieing to me?

Your intellectual dishonesty is blatant and very insulting. You can only make such a charge if you’ve completely ignored everything I’ve posted.

Now I’ve demonstrated that 700 scientists who know something about AGW do not believe that the warming is manmade. That is a consensus. Maybe not every last scientist–but a consensus.

Perhaps we need to go over the definition of “scientific consensus” I helpfully provided in my last comment again. It is “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists IN A PARTICULAR FIELD OF STUDY.” [My screaming emphasis for the benefit of the terminally thick.] “In a particular field of study” means those scientists who actually work in that field to earn their daily bread. So, for example, a collection of 700 bacteriologists who say that the Sun is only 20 miles across does not a scientific consensus make.

How did you get that name again?

It’s the name of a character in a play I was in once. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Personally, I don’t think you’re one to have never made a mistake. In fact, you’re probably aware of quite a few you’ve made but won’t admit to them. I forget, what do they call those kinds of people, Dread?

Ad hominems are the last resort of the desperate.

Fortunately, we know what our climate history has been for the last 600,000 years, we know all the normal cycles (and there are at least 8 of them), we know earth’s changing distance from the sun, we know the total heat output from the sun, we know the sun’s luminosity, it’s likely age before nova, peak time for sunspot activity, date for closest approach, eclipse time and duration for the next hundred years…

OK. Since we know all that, why don’t you post something which shows how all this correlates with the current warming cycle? Not past cycles – the current one. (Just so we’re clear about that.)

but we still have those who would say earth’s demise will come from AGW.

Nobody with any sense is saying that. The Earth will still be here long after we’ve disappeared, left or evolved into something else. AGW theory holds that man-made emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide, are causing an enhanced greenhouse effect and that the effects of this are having and will continue to have deleterious consequences for the biosphere, including human civilization.

Kevin

Dread,

Tell me then, since your one of the comment editors, have you ever seen a message deleted because an e-mail was put in?

You probably know this, but I haven’t submitted any column for a year or so because my password was disabled. I wonder who did that? If I was able to post, I could send a lot of things you could access because I wouldn’t have your e-mail. Besides, I don’t know the first thing about damaging an e-mail. Not only that, but you could completely delete an e-mail from ever sending anything to you. Your call…

Plants and trees are doing an excellent job absorbing CO2. Remember in the Carboniferous Period when it used to be 14000 ppm? Of course, there weren’t too many cars back 100,000 years ago either.

It’s time to concentrate on understanding a little better, Dread. Any carbon in the mantle is chemically bound with various other compounds. NO CO2 can be released. Carbon can form bonds with >15,000 compounds. It might not be wise to argue that fact with a Chemical Engineer. And yes, the earth is a closed system it cannot gain additional carbon or oxygen under ANY normal circumstance. Any thwarting any opinion that one is going to see additional oxygen from the mantle is absolutely the biggest ‘pipe-dream’ I ever heard.

No cherry-picking. The seven hundred scientists that signed a paper to the IPCC denying AGW were intimately involved with climate research, no matter what kind of scientist they were.

Actually, I read most of your citations and they shed no light whatsoever. But you still have not given me a way to get anything to you. You didn’t even fully read one of my responses.

Every one of those seven hundred scientists, most of whom are climatologists, either work for the IPCC or their respective countries.

I asked you a question about if you lied to me. I made no charge. You can do that yourself.

I already told you that the 700 scientists were those that specifically studied climate. NONE were bacteriologists. Interesting you throw a totally unrelated concept up like that.

Hey, did you not hear? We have not been warming up since 1998. And you seem to forget Newsweek putting out a column in 1975 about Global Cooling??? Alas, I have no way of showing that to you—yet.

Why do you miss the facts that the Antarctic is GAINING ice, the earth’s ocean levels are rising nowhere near as fast as Algore has stated, that median temperatures have been falling since 1998, Hanson claiming we only have 4 years left (8 years ago), massive corruption in the IPCC with falsification and erasures of data, and maybe 20 other facts yet to be stated.

The most interesting thing I’ve seen is that astrophysicists have documented global waring on Mars, Neptune, and at least 3 other moons. But the planets and moons have NO cars…

Tell me then, since your one of the comment editors, have you ever seen a message deleted because an e-mail was put in?

We usually just delete the actual e-mail address (or AOL Instant Messenger ID. Or even phone number. Some people are very naive). It happens several times a week.

You probably know this, but I haven’t submitted any column for a year or so because my password was disabled.

No, I didn’t know that. Why don’t you contact the editors’ group (you were given details of how to do that when you signed up as a writer) and ask them if they can fix it?

Plants and trees are doing an excellent job absorbing CO2.

Agreed, but there is a limit to what they can do. Any system can be overwhelmed. The police do an excellent job of suppressing the crime rate, for example, but they become markedly less effective at times of civil disorder, for example the Watts riots.

Remember in the Carboniferous Period when it used to be 14000 ppm?

No, I don’t remember. I’m not that ancient. And it was much lower than 14,000 according to this. What’s your source?

Of course, there weren’t too many cars back 100,000 years ago either.

Or 360 million years ago, which is when the Carboniferous Period started. I fail to see your point, since the Earth was a vastly different place back then.

Any thwarting any opinion that one is going to see additional oxygen from the mantle is absolutely the biggest ‘pipe-dream’ I ever heard.

Once again (setting aside the fact that the above sentence is complete gibberish), I did not say anything about the mantle. Fossil fuels come from the crust.

No cherry-picking. The seven hundred scientists that signed a paper to the IPCC denying AGW were intimately involved with climate research, no matter what kind of scientist they were.

Tell you what. I’ll pick 5 people from your list at random and you go ahead and research how many peer-reviewed papers on climate each of them has published. Get back to me when you’re done.

And you seem to forget Newsweek putting out a column in 1975 about Global Cooling???

Ah, Newsweek. That well-known scientific journal…

Helpfully, Peterson (2008) did a survey of scientific literature published during the 1970s on the subject of climate change. He found that the majority of them either predicted warming or were neutral. Newsweek merely picked up on a single piece of research that they thought would make a nice juicy sensational article and sell magazines.

It is gaining sea ice, yes. Guess where that comes from? And guess what happens when sea ice melts?

the earth’s ocean levels are rising nowhere near as fast as Algore has stated

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. And actually, An Inconvenient Truth did not predict sea level rise: it simply purported to show, hypothetically, what would happen to sea level if the Greenland and/or West Antarctic ice sheets collapsed.

that median temperatures have been falling since 1998

Wrong, and repetitious. See above.

Hanson claiming we only have 4 years left (8 years ago)

Actually he said it two years ago, and he wasn’t saying that we only have four years left, but four years (the new President’s term of office) to avert the worst effects of climate change.

massive corruption in the IPCC with falsification and erasures of data

Citations?

and maybe 20 other facts yet to be stated.

All of which I am confident can be just as easily debunked as everything else you’ve tried, and are undoubtedly as irrelevant as the rest of your stuff to my original challenge, which was for you to show a consensus of no warming.

astrophysicists have documented global waring on Mars, Neptune, and at least 3 other moons. But the planets and moons have NO cars…

There is no documented warming on Mars; warming on Jupiter has been predicted, not observed (hey, one of those climate models that “skeptics” love to say are unreliable!), and Neptune is entering its summer (which only comes once every 164 years).

But the planets and moons have NO cars…

When did I or anyone else say that AGW was caused only by cars?

Glenn Contrarian

Wow, Doc – I’ve never seen you go after someone in such detail. That’s the longest comment I’ve seen you make.

But you know what? He’s not going to listen. Just as you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, you can also show a staunchly conservative global-warming denier all the facts and peer-reviewed research in the world, and he STILL won’t get a clue. After all, he’s got Glenn Beck’s word on it, and that’s all he needs.

Y’know, there’s this faux-brass doorknob I’ve been arguing with, that yeah, we DID land a man on the moon. I’ve shown that doorknob all the video, all the research, all the testimonies and the history…and that doorknob STILL won’t admit that we sent men to walk on the moon, much less had them drive a moon rover for a few miles.

Because you refuse to do what will get you info, I’ll make it easy for you. Having sent in many columns to Technorati, you already have my e-mail. If not it’s readily available from a simple internet search of [roeten]. With my e-mail, you can send a note ONLY to me. No one else will get your e-mail.

It’s very difficult to believe that being an editor of submissions, you didn’t know about me having my password deleted.

Of course you don’t remember what the CO2 level was in the Carboniferous Period–or any other period for that matter. The data exists is readily available if you would just follow the prior instructions.

I realize you find this hard to understand, but according to ‘global warmers’, CO2 is the culprit for AGW. You have yet to explain why elevated CO2 did not cause global warming in the past.

Interesting you call statements ‘incorrect’ when you have no idea whom they work for.

It’s difficult to say ‘I have no justification’ when you have said that you haven’t read some of my past responses.

It’s too bad you don’t see my point about elevated CO2 levels, when CO2 and global warming haven’t changed throughout time.

I guess it was a very POOR analogy about throwing ‘bacteriologists’ in the mix.

Tell you what. I’ll pick a few scientists who do have peer-reviewed papers out (that I know about). You can comment on their papers, that is if you’ve read them.

Oh, believe me, Kevin, I’m very, very open-minded about global warming. Having seen some of the projections, including the ones that are considered to be the most likely and which make the IPCC’s “worst case” scenarios look like a kids’ picnic at Disneyland, I’d love to see some convincing evidence that we have nothing to worry about. However, since you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you can’t even get basic facts right, I’ve no great hope that you can provide that evidence.

Because you refuse to do what will get you info

No: I don’t see the point in conducting this debate privately. I’ve repeatedly invited you to post your electronic sources in the electronic Blogcritics comments space, but you refuse to do so. Is it because you’re worried that others besides me will spot the giant holes in your material and drive buses through them?

The data exists is readily available if you would just follow the prior instructions.

I already found out, and cited, the CORRECT level of atmospheric CO2 in my previous comment. You, on the other hand, not only got the numbers wrong but didn’t even give the correct dates for the Carboniferous.

You have yet to explain why elevated CO2 did not cause global warming in the past.

I made no such claim.

Interesting you call statements ‘incorrect’ when you have no idea whom they work for.

I posted links showing that they were incorrect.

Tell you what. I’ll pick a few scientists who do have peer-reviewed papers out (that I know about). You can comment on their papers, that is if you’ve read them.

Were those people on your original list? If not, you’re moving the goalposts. I’ll get back to you about them… after you’ve got back to me with a list of the published papers on climate from your five guys (you’ll have to take my word for it that I selected them at random).

Which citations of mine did you read?

Since the only actual concrete source you’ve cited was that list of quotes and petition signatories (although that was a copy-and-paste job rather than a real citation), I’d have to say all of them. Every point you’ve made (including the above) has been either a talking point, an appeal to authority or an ad hominem.

Calling “no warming since 1998” wrong is very unfounded. Any data to back that up?

Yet more blatant dishonesty on your part. My response “Wrong” links to a paper with the relevant data.

You’re ‘interpreting’ what Hansen meant? The link you sent stated ‘4 years to save earth’, as well as an ‘eco-disaster’.

Yes? And? “4 years to save Earth” does not mean the same thing as “The Earth will end in 4 years”. And you still misrepresented Hansen by saying that he said that eight years ago. Yet another piece of easily verifiable information you got wrong.

The point is that Antarctica is GAINING ice. It’s not melting, it’s forming.

Basic primer:
“What would happen if I scattered nails on Kevin’s driveway?” is a hypothetical question.
“Kevin is going to get a flat tire” is a prediction.

Glenn Contrarian

Um, Kevin –

I think you’d better recheck that list of oh-so-qualified people you’re using…and see which of them are paid by Big Oil (esp. the Koch brothers).

But the problem, Kevin, is that in ANY PROFESSION you care to name, you’re going to find some outliers, some who disagree with the vast majority of their colleagues…

…and in very rare cases, the few are right – BUT you will NOT find a modern instance wherein the very, very small minority was right wherein the majority did not come to accept their findings in a few years. Einstein’s theories of relativity was FAR more controversial than global warming ever has been…but his findings were accepted in less than five years. Why? Because like most scientists, the physicists were more concerned with what was factual than with what they wanted to believe. Scientists are mostly that way…and maybe that’s why 94% of ALL American scientists are either Democratic or independent, and only 6% claim to be a Republican. Care to guess your reference Fred Singer’s political leaning?

98% of the world’s climatologists agree that AGW is quite real…and the fact that you’ve found a VERY FEW climatologists who think otherwise does NOT mean that AGW is wrong. If you’ll do your research, the AGW deniers are often bankrolled by those who have the most to lose from global-warming legislation: Big Oil.

And yet you still want to ASSUME that there’s some big grand conspiracy by 98% of the world’s climatologists to push ‘global warming’. Well, yeah, and there’s a lot of people who think that the moon landings didn’t happen either. What about you?

But I’m wasting my time – you’re not here to objectively discuss facts. You’ve decided that no matter what you’re shown, no matter how corrupt or crackpot your references are, you will NEVER accept that AGW is real…no matter how obvious the weather patterns become over the decades to come….

Oh, and BTW, Kevin, I’m just a comments editor. I’m not concerned with the editing and publishing of articles or with account management. My suggestion stands: if you’re still interested in writing for Blogcritics, contact site management and they should be able to sort out your password problem.

…Are you sure you didn’t simply forget your password?

Glenn Contrarian

Doc –

It’s impossible that Kevin forgot his password – he, like all the global-warming deniers, is incapable of error.

zingzing

i’m beginning to think that kevin doesn’t know what hyperlinks and peer-reviewed scientific journals are. the bit from #83 about a “BOOK” is truly hilarious. there seems to be some deep-seated ignorance not only about how science works, but about how life (not to mention the world) works these days.

Kevin

Dread,

Just so you understand, here’s quick synopsis of documents provided by those who actually believe in AGW:

Per Senator James Ihhofe (R/Ok), “This is a political document, not a scientific report, and it is a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain. The media has failed to report that the IPCC summary for Policymakers was not approved by scientists but by UN political delegates and bureaucrats.” The IPCC was only releasing the Summary for Policymakers on 2/2/07, not the actual scientific report which is not due out until May 2007. “The UN guidelines themselves mandate that the science be altered to conform to the Summary for Policymakers which is not approved by the scientists, but by the political delegates of the UN.” Riibeta Abeta(Island Nation/ Kiribati) openly admitted to the “AP” that the Summary for Policymakers is designed to convince world leaders to take action…to get policymakers moving.

Actually, the vast majority of scientists (700) represent the vast majority of scientists at the IPCC. Prior to 1998, it was the other way around. I wonder why that’s happening?

Turns out that my column that was over years old actually read “Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, and Neptune’s moon are verified to be undergoing ‘global warming’ coinciding with the earth.”

Neptune only has ‘summer’ on the sun-near side when the equator is tilted up. Perhaps a short course in meteorology might be a good idea for you.

Even back in Oct 2004, it was reported in the Chinese Science Bulletin(10/4/06), that in comparisons between temperature variations and solar activities, that both temperature trends and climactic events are related to solar variability.

Solar variability? Nothing about CO2 there.

Results (Journal of Geophysical Research) of the Antarctic grounded ice sheet exceeds previous estimates, and has been growing over the past quarter-century(171 mm/year). European satellites have measured Antarctica’s ice thickness 347 million times between 1992-2003, and found it to be gaining 45 billion tons of water/yr (Dennis Avery/State Department).

Actually, I saw your link talking about ‘land ice’ vs ‘sea ice’. They acknowledged sea ice was dramatically increasing. They ‘said’ that land ice was decreasing. Well no kidding? Except for some snow, there’s rarely water the land sees. Any ice on land should sublime (frozen water turning directly into vapor).

There will be more ice in the water because it’s directly affected by ambient temperatures–which have been colder.

Too bad he didn’t say anything about that.

You mentioned you didn’t say anything about earth’s mantle. But you talked about all that CO2 that was underground. Well the mantle is underground. The crust is the portion of the earth that is above and below the crust at times.

CO2 on earth is a specific quantity. As described earlier, the carbon in the mantle is all bound up with other elements and will almost never form CO2. What we see in the atmosphere and in the ocean is what what we got. CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming.

Hansen was ‘reported’ to have said ‘4 years to save earth’. Do you know when he first said it? I thought not.

‘Four years to save earth’ IS the same as ‘earth will end in 4 years'(something bad will happen to the earth), unless, of course, you’re trying to interpret again what Hansen is really saying. You leave out the use of ‘eco-disaster’ as well.

The word ‘wrong’ just doesn’t cut it. Remember your link? In it, David Jones admits that 1998 WAS the warmest on record. He tries a lot of convoluted facts to try to get out of it, but it doesn’t work.
——————————————
Bottom line: The vast majority of IPCC actual scientists say GW is due to cycles inherent to the system. Even Jones admits to cycles that change climate–two of which he specifically mentions is el Nino and la Nina.

My e-mail is out on the internet readily. You can get it any time. You WON’T use it for a specific reason. You could easily use mine and get all the info I’m privy to.

In fact, you could easily access any link contained in a negative story about AGW, but you won’t. Is that because it’ll destroy your ‘world-view’ of things?

It may be a good idea to check on the dozen or so contacts I gave you, compared to the meager 5 you supplied. If they were proponents of natural global warming, they didn’t seem to have any peer-reviewed papers that I had seen.

It might help as well if you started answering a few question I had for you, instead or some cryptic ‘non-answer’ that was common.

It would be nice to admit you only believe certain sets of data while ignoring anything I’ve presented. And it would be nice to correctly differentiate between a ‘hypothetical’ statement, and a ‘prediction’.

Oh, and by the way, its difficult to forget a password to ‘blogtronics’ when you WRITE it down.

Have a nice day!

Kevin

Dread,

[Climate during the Carboniferous Period]

[Solar Variation]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation]

[Paleomap Project]

All the above links did not come out as links when transposed to this thread. But I’m certain you can retrieve then easily. I’ll find out how to transpose them correctly in a short period of time.

In [Climate during the Carboniferous Period], CO2 concentration has historically been much higher than today’s 400 ppm. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 MYA), average CO2 concentration was about 1800 ppm, or almost 5x higher than today. The highest concentrations during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, at nearly 7000 ppm. That’s about 17x today’s 400 ppm.

I realized that the CO2 content I originally posted wasn’t for the Carboniferous Period only, but concentrations for various periods around the Carboniferous Period.

The [Paleomap Project] gives similar CO2 concentrations over the various periods.

Of course, you probably disbelieve that too.

Glenn Contrarian

Kevin –

1Take a look at the world. Do we have the vast rainforests and great forests that we had even two hundred years ago? These were the great carbon sinks of the surface world. The oceans – which are the world’s greatest carbon sink – are slowly approaching the CO2 saturation point. Indeed, in 2007 it was reported that the southern oceans (surrounding Antarctica) were already nearing the CO2 saturation point.

And what happens to the oceans with an increase in CO2 content? Ocean acidification. This bleaches – kills off – not only the great reefs of the oceans, but also causes ‘dead zones’, great swaths of the ocean void of sea life due to oxygen depletion. Did you see the news a few days ago about a million or so sardines dying somewhere near Malibu? Google it – they died due to oxygen depletion. Also, it was well known long before the BP oil spill that a significant percentage of the Gulf of Mexico was also nearly a dead zone.

So it looks like you’re going to get your wish, Kevin – nothing substantive is going to get done to prevent what’s going to happen. You’ll probably live long enough to see the beginning of the worst effects of what anthropogenic global warming is going to do to human civilization.

But I’m sure you’ll just tell yourself that it’s all just natural causes…that seven billion or more humans using half a billion cars every day, pumping out all that carbon monoxide (itself not a greenhouse gas, but does decompose into such), depending on thousands of coal/oil/gas-fired plants for power…with hundreds of millions of humans living in megalopolises that become vast ‘heat islands’…

…yeah, you’ll tell yourself that all this just couldn’t have anything to do with global warming!

Hey – ever hear about the ‘dust bowl’ of the American Midwest during the Depression? It’s well accepted by all that it was caused by overfarming and overcultivation. This was done by a few million people in what we would now see as a fairly sparsely-populated area.

And if a few million people can inadvertently cause a ‘dust bowl’ that affected several states for close to a decade, one wonders what a thousand times as many – few BILLION people – can do to the world as a whole?

But you don’t worry about that now, you hear? ‘Cause you surely know better than the VAST majority of scientists throughout the world….

It says a lot more about you than I think you realize that you won’t do the obvious to try and resolve your password problem – like, oh, I don’t know, contacting Blogcritics management and asking them to see if they can reset it for you, for instance.

But apparently you’d rather believe that there’s some kind of dastardly conspiracy to silence you… never mind the pages of lengthy comments you’ve been able to post.

On the substance (if any) of your latest, I might have to take a few days getting back to you because I have some other pressing demands on my time this weekend. Watch this space…

One other thing for now: in order to make links clickable in your comments, you have to encode them yourself using HTML – they won’t work if you just copy and paste from the source. Here’s a quick and easy tutorial on how to do it.

Kevin

Dread,

Thank you for your link for encoding ‘HTML’. I’ve already copied and pasted from the source many times. The info never comes over with the link, as I’m sure you can tell because they’re never blue.

I’m sure you can access the name [roeten] on the internet. I’m also sure you can access past articles on ‘Blogtronics’ I’ve written, and access all links within them.

You won’t do that, and there is a reason. Maybe you don’t realize that I’m not the hard-liner immovable conservative most think I am.

My old password does NOT work any more. It is possible Blogtronics management deleted it when they realized that one time Blogtronics was not the ONLY blog I published too.

I shall try another accepted password and publish again according to their requirements.

Thanks again for the link.

Jordan Richardson

My password doesn’t work at Blogtronics either.

El Bicho

I had pointed out the “Blogtronics” problem and had the comment removed. Not sure how helping a writer violates the comment policy, but so be it.

According to DomainTools.com, BlogTronics.com is one of 15 domains owned by Vassko Mladjov of Oakland, CA. I suggest dispensing with BC middlemen and forwarding any complaints about BlogTronics directly to Vassko at the address and/or phone number shown.

Are you getting your websites confused? This site is Blogcritics, not Blogtronics.

I did, as a matter of fact, Google ‘kevin roeten’. I discovered that, outside of Blogcritics, you’re a regular contributor at NolanChart and opeds.com. There’s also a Kevin Roeten who resells used ink cartridges, but whether that’s you I don’t know.

And you’re absolutely right about not being immovable. Your opinions run the whole gamut from hardline conservative to rabid Catholic fundamentalist.

Kevin

Dread,

No, I don’t think I’m confusing websites. For some reason, I just put the wrong name down—Blogtronics instead of the correct one–“Blogcritics”. But we’ll try it again, nonetheless.

You are correct about NolanChart and opeds.com. Both seem to have software that will allow HTML to be automatically converted.

I’m afraid I’m not the one who resells used ink cartridges. In fact, I’m shocked there’s another [Kevin Roeten] out there because that’s NEVER popped up for me before.

Just remember being hardline conservative and Catholic fundamentalist are NOT mutually exclusive.

here’s quick synopsis of documents provided by those who actually believe in AGW:

Per Senator James Ihhofe (R/Ok), “This is a political document, not a scientific report, and it is a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain…”

That’s not a synopsis, it’s Senator Inhofe’s opinion.

“…The media has failed to report that the IPCC summary for Policymakers was not approved by scientists but by UN political delegates and bureaucrats.”

What’s odd about that? The clue is in the title: “Summary for Policymakers“.

Riibeta Abeta(Island Nation/ Kiribati) openly admitted to the “AP” that the Summary for Policymakers is designed to convince world leaders to take action…to get policymakers moving.

Well, of course it is. That’s the whole point of a document aimed at policymakers, Kev…

Actually, the vast majority of scientists (700) represent the vast majority of scientists at the IPCC. Prior to 1998, it was the other way around. I wonder why that’s happening?

All but a couple of the scientists and engineers on your list (assuming we’re still talking about the same 700 people) are not members of nor affiliated with the IPCC, so I’m in the dark as to what point you think you’re making here.

Turns out that my column that was over years old actually read “Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, and Neptune’s moon are verified to be undergoing ‘global warming’ coinciding with the earth.”

I’ve addressed this already. Even if it were so, correlation does not equal causation. Just because a business fails in California at the same time three other businesses fail in Idaho, Minnesota and Georgia, it doesn’t mean that the same thing caused the failure of all four businesses. [Helpful note: the preceding is another analogy.]

Neptune only has ‘summer’ on the sun-near side when the equator is tilted up. Perhaps a short course in meteorology might be a good idea for you.

You’re still getting weather and climate confused, I see. I was trying to simplify things for you.

To claim that Neptune (or any of its moons) are warming in the first place is a bit wild to begin with, since we know so little about the planet. It’s so far from the Sun that it hasn’t even completed a single orbit since Johann Galle discovered it in 1846. We have observed it brightening (not the same thing as warming), but that is because its southern hemisphere, which is currently tilted towards us, is entering its summer.

Also, solar activity has decreased, not increased, over the past few decades, which discounts it as a reason for any planetary brightening or warming.

Even back in Oct 2004, it was reported in the Chinese Science Bulletin(10/4/06), that in comparisons between temperature variations and solar activities, that both temperature trends and climactic events are related to solar variability.

We know that. As I said above, though, in recent decades solar activity has declined while global temperatures have continued to rise. Therefore, something else is causing the warming.

Results (Journal of Geophysical Research) of the Antarctic grounded ice sheet exceeds previous estimates, and has been growing over the past quarter-century(171 mm/year). European satellites have measured Antarctica’s ice thickness 347 million times between 1992-2003, and found it to be gaining 45 billion tons of water/yr (Dennis Avery/State Department).

Avery seems to be conflating land ice with sea ice, and also the West Antarctic and east Antarctic ice sheets. Prior to 2006 ice thickness over the East Antarctic interior was indeed thickening, but the region was losing ice at its edges, largely because of gravity (ice flows downhill just as liquid water does, just more slowly). This resulted in an approximate equilibrium. However, overall, Antarctica was losing ice mass. Recent data indicates that now even East Antarctica is now longer in mass balance.

They ‘said’ that land ice was decreasing. Well no kidding? Except for some snow, there’s rarely water the land sees. Any ice on land should sublime (frozen water turning directly into vapor).

Well, which is it, Kevin? Just now you were arguing that Antarctic ice mass is increasing; now you’re agreeing with me that it’s decreasing?

And as I just pointed out, sublimation is not the only way land ice can be lost.

There will be more ice in the water because it’s directly affected by ambient temperatures–which have been colder.

Wrong again. Measured air temperatures over the areas of sea ice cover in the Antarctic Ocean show an increasing trend.

There are a number of reasons why sea ice is increasing despite warming temperatures, including:
1. The seas around Antarctica are freshening due to increased ice runoff from the land, increased precipitation and the break-up of ice shelves. Fresh water freezes more readily than salt water. (Antarctica is still very cold.)
2. The ozone hole over the continent has lowered stratospheric temperatures, causing higher winds. These winds blow icebergs apart, which leads to more open water which in turn freezes over.

You mentioned you didn’t say anything about earth’s mantle. But you talked about all that CO2 that was underground. Well the mantle is underground. The crust is the portion of the earth that is above and below the crust at times.

Can anybody help me out and indicate to me if there is a single bit of the above paragraph which makes the slightest bit of sense?

Kevin, the mantle is irrelevant (actually it’s not, due to vulcanism, but that’s not what I was talking about). There are (or were) billion of tons of carbon locked up in oil, coal and natural gas deposits within the CRUST. They took millions of years to get there; they’re being released back into the atmosphere within hundreds. You are absolutely wrong that carbon is available only in the atmosphere and the oceans.

Hansen was ‘reported’ to have said ‘4 years to save earth’. Do you know when he first said it? I thought not.

If you’re going to answer all your own questions, why bother asking?

As I responded before, and as far as I can tell from a Google search, Hansen said it in an interview he gave in 2009. And yes, Google does have a feature which allows you to narrow search results down by date. I got no hits from eight years ago.

‘Four years to save earth’ IS the same as ‘earth will end in 4 years'(something bad will happen to the earth)

No, it isn’t. If a mile-wide asteroid hits us in four years, it will be bad, but it won’t destroy the planet.

unless, of course, you’re trying to interpret again what Hansen is really saying.

Kevin, reading is the interpretation of what someone is saying. You and I both have our interpretations of what Hansen said. Yours happens to be wrong, that’s all.

You leave out the use of ‘eco-disaster’ as well.

Well, he’s absolutely right.

David Jones admits that 1998 WAS the warmest on record.

You must have missed not only the wealth of supporting data and graphs in the paper, but also this, in the very first paragraph: “While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998.” [my emphasis]

He also makes the very good point that ten years isn’t nearly a long enough time period to jump to the sort of conclusion you’re willing to jump to. It’s like saying that because the Knicks have lost their last six games, they won’t win again for the rest of the season.

Bottom line: The vast majority of IPCC actual scientists say GW is due to cycles inherent to the system.

No, the bottom line is that you have arbitrarily replaced the scientific consensus with a petition.

Even Jones admits to cycles that change climate–two of which he specifically mentions is el Nino and la Nina.

Good grief, man, that was the whole reason why 1998 was exceptionally warm! Jones again: “A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.”

By your reasoning, Phoenix has a wet climate because it rained there last week.

My e-mail is out on the internet readily. You can get it any time. You WON’T use it for a specific reason. You could easily use mine and get all the info I’m privy to.

I’m not going over this again.

In fact, you could easily access any link contained in a negative story about AGW, but you won’t. Is that because it’ll destroy your ‘world-view’ of things?

Sure, Kev, because it was you who found and posted that Newsweek article, right? And you who had to tell me who Anthony Watts was? Oh, wait…

You seem to be very confident about what I will and won’t do. Are you somehow able to monitor my internet use? Or are you just continuing to talk out of your behind?

It may be a good idea to check on the dozen or so contacts I gave you, compared to the meager 5 you supplied. If they were proponents of natural global warming, they didn’t seem to have any peer-reviewed papers that I had seen.

Yes, I’m not surprised and you’ve helpfully proved my point. They were from your list…

Back later.

Kevin

Dread`,

Please get your facts straight. The quotation I have from Inhofe is from many conferences, many others who have included their information, and actual goings on in the Senate. One man’s opinion has nothing to do with it.

What odd about that statement is that you believe it when it came from policymakers–NOT scientists.

Let me try to explain this in the simplest terms–because of the lack of scientists confirming AGW, the left is using policymakers to push an agenda.

The point I’m making here is that over 700 scientists are much more than the entire IPCC itself, the IPCC is going against what the majority of SCIENTISTS are telling them.

(Helpful Note: The supplied analogy was one that did NOT apply to the situation of obtaining planet temperatures.) Just so you know, the astronomers likely used an infrared spectrophotometer to detect temps on far off planets.

I didn’t say correlation equals causation. But it can. A point you have unfortunately overlooked.

Sorry, Dread. But YOU were the one that said ‘summer’. It seems like you’re the one getting weather and climate confused.

It doesn’t matter which ‘hemisphere’ Neptune has facing us. It is so far away from us that what hemisphere is facing us is inconsequential.

I guess you haven’t been following solar activities very closely, Dread. The sun has INCREASED in brightness and temperature over the years.

Solar activity has NOT declined, but increased. I think you need to pay attention to solar temps a litle closer, Dread.

More coming…

Kevin

Dread,

Avery was not confusing land ice with sea ice. Values of ice thickness was for the whole of Antarctica, not just East Antarctica.

You can easily see that it is gaining ice from the info I gave. And you never mentioned sublimation–I did. Obviously land ice would see ice losses because there’s no sea water to replenish it–except of course with an occasional snowstorm.

Sublimation is the very major component of ice disappearance on land. There’s little seawater to replenish it.

Remember, saying I’m ‘wrong again’ doesn’t make it right. You have access to most of my data. I wonder why most scientists are now saying AGW has never occurred?

Sea ice is increasing because of LOWER temperatures. Fresh water does freeze more readily than sea water! So if the ice is being gained in seawater, that means temperatures have to be colder than usual.

Hadn’t you read? The ozone hole has been growing 30% smaller as of the last 20 years. So, it has nothing to do with higher winds.

More later…

Kevin

Dread,

Let me help you out a little on that paragraph. It should read “The crust is the portion of the earth that is close to the top of the earth.” My bad. The last stated “crust” should’ve been changed.

I did say the mantle was irrelevant even though it did have carbon. I did say all of the carbon was locked up in bonds with other elements. You remember that, don’t you?

I’m also saying that any carbon in the crust has already been turned over several times in the past 600,000 years as your graph named the Carboniferous Period shows, with most concentrations of CO2 greater than today.

It is an incorrect statement to say that I said carbon is only in the atmosphere and oceans.

Of course you got no ‘hits’ about Hansen 8 years ago. It doesn’t mean he was dead and not a meteorologist then, it just means he wasn’t famous.

I don’t believe ‘eco-disaster’ was Hansen’s words.

YES, those statements are essentially the same thing–unless you’re trying to interpret what Hansen was trying to say again.

No, I didn’t miss any of his data that he supplied. He admitted 1998 WAS the warmest on record. I did notice that he tried to change that fact with a lot of convoluted info engineered to say something different.

And no, there is no scientific consensus saying AGW is a fact. There are more than 700 scientists saying that man has little to do with it, but current astrophysical cycles have almost EVERYTHING to do with it.

Uh-oh, Dread. Poor analogy again. And I didn’t jump to any conclusion. You did, by saying AGW is something we need to be very worried about.

Now let me get this straight. Without el-Nino’s warming effect in 1998, the warming trend is even more obvious???

What does the wet climate Phoenix supposedly has, have anything to do whether it rained there last week. It rained here today, but we normally have a fairly dry climate.

It seems you jest again. If you’re looking for data, you can easily access any link by me you have found on the internet. You’ve seen all this data, correct? You seem to mistrust me with my e-mail, but you won’t send yours to get even more info. You have mine from any one of those blogs you accessed, but you’re still afraid for some reason. Even after I told you I meant you no harm, despite the fact I am unable do cast any malfeasance on your e-mail.

Dread, I never posted any Newsweek article. You did. My point was to say that the mass populace was under the impression in 1975 that there was ‘AGC’. I guess that wasn’t the case… Who is Anthony Watts??

Wow, you must be paranoid! I can access your internet now???

And you’ll have to let me know what your ‘point’ actually was. I’m sure you can do it. We have a lot of faith in you!

What odd about that statement is that you believe it when it came from policymakers–NOT scientists.

Jumping to conclusions again, Kevin. I said nothing about whether I believe it or not. Actually, on matters of science, I’ll take what the scientific evidence shows over what a policymaker says. That, as Inhofe and his cronies abundantly demonstrate, tends not to be true of policymakers… which is why the IPCC has to e-try to e-speak-a their language.

Let me try to explain this in the simplest terms–because of the lack of scientists confirming AGW, the left is using policymakers to push an agenda.

You can continue to pretend there’s no scientific support for AGW all you want, Kevin, but that won’t make it true.

The point I’m making here is that over 700 scientists are much more than the entire IPCC itself, the IPCC is going against what the majority of SCIENTISTS are telling them.

Not every climate scientist in the world is in the IPCC, so your argument is ridiculous. If I were to gather together 700 registered Democrats and tell you that because there are only 288 Republican members of Congress, Congress does not represent the will of the American people, would you accept that as valid?

Just so you know, the astronomers likely used an infrared spectrophotometer to detect temps on far off planets.

“Likely”? Well, did they or didn’t they? Citation?

It doesn’t matter which ‘hemisphere’ Neptune has facing us. It is so far away from us that what hemisphere is facing us is inconsequential.

Again, saying that doesn’t make it so.

Really, Kevin, you’re clutching at such a flimsy straw with Neptune that you should probably drop it.

The sun has INCREASED in brightness and temperature over the years.

Oh, so now it’s “over the years”? How about in recent years? Any citation to back up your claim that solar activity has increased?

Avery was not confusing land ice with sea ice. Values of ice thickness was for the whole of Antarctica, not just East Antarctica.

Obviously land ice would see ice losses because there’s no sea water to replenish it–except of course with an occasional snowstorm.

Which kind of throws your claim that Antarctica is gaining ice thickness out of the window, doesn’t it?

Sublimation is the very major component of ice disappearance on land.

Only if you ignore gravity.

Remember, saying I’m ‘wrong again’ doesn’t make it right.

I haven’t just been saying that you’re wrong. I have been explaining why you’re wrong and providing links to back my arguments up.

You, on the other hand, have just been repeating the same false claims over and over as if you’re hoping I’ll forget we’ve already been over the same ground, or just give in.

I wonder why most scientists are now saying AGW has never occurred?

They aren’t, as I’ve already shown you on multiple occasions.

Sea ice is increasing because of LOWER temperatures.

Citation? In particular, one which shows that my citation is wrong?

Fresh water does freeze more readily than sea water! So if the ice is being gained in seawater, that means temperatures have to be colder than usual.

I’ve already provided you with a source which shows that measured air temperatures in the Antarctic Ocean are increasing, not decreasing. You’re trying to make the facts fit your theory, rather than the other way round.

Hadn’t you read? The ozone hole has been growing 30% smaller as of the last 20 years. So, it has nothing to do with higher winds.

I know it’s been getting smaller, but it’s there. Strange how you’re so insistent on the influence of the Sun on the climate of Earth, but are adamant that nothing else can possibly influence it.

And your #124 just repeats several spurious arguments of yours which have already been answered, and ignores or willfully misunderstands points I’ve already made.

There seems little point to me in continuing to go around in circles, so I think I’ll call it a day at this point. No doubt you’ll take this, without any justification whatsoever, as an admission that you’ve won. I think other readers of this thread (if they have the stamina) will be quite clear on that question.

Oh, and Kev? Don’t look now, but I heard there’s an angry mob of critical thinking professors on their way to your house with pitchforks and flaming torches.

My ‘point’ was that there was no scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 was not a cause of warming, and that the consensus was actually just the opposite.

You never provided any proof of your claim, just repeatedly lied about it.

You have a nice day too.

Heloise

The number of children among educated, black middle class women is 2 or 1.5. Years ago counted all the women I knew and not one had more than 2 children. On the other hand lower SES black women have more than 2 and also use ADC more often.

What does that mean? We are going backwards. Whites tend to reverse this with white middle class families above average number of children. So, I don’t know where he got his facts from, but has always been true.

As for Muslims, I would add Mexicans to that list. They are fertile and not afraid or ashamed to walk around with 5 little ones running wild through the stores and a teen daughter with another baby tagging along.

Doug Hunter

#127

You guys have demonstrated a typical argument. You are correct that the trace gas CO2 does play a small part in the greenhouse effect and hence causes warming, that doesn’t mean that any number of draconian measures, lowered standard of living, higher prices for necessities, and onerous taxation are necessary. Call me a glass half full kind of guy, but I think humans can deal with the 6″ rise in sea level with 100 years advanced notice, I think ecosystems are used to changing climate, they don’t know global warming from regional or local warming/cooling that happens all the time (every hear of the mideval warm period or little ice age) Plants and animals don’t know what the ‘average’ temperature for the planet is they only know what it is at their location which varies much more from year to year and region to region than the effects of CO2 driven climate change. Over the span of 100 years if we have to shift farming a few miles north or south and build our building 1 extra foot above sea level I think that’s easier than the big goverment option backed by the same people who were suggesting big government options before the convenient excuse for climate change.

If you truly dig into the science rather than the media headlines a picture that is not quite as catastrophic will begin to emerge. Here’s a recent report on sea level rise that is typical of that: Sea level rise, which has been occuring since the end of the last ice age 10-15,000 years ago has actually been decelerating over the last 100 years. (it even seems odd to me considering the increased heat/melting/pumping of ground water into the oceans, etc) Now granted, any moment that trend could reverse and horrible doomsday leftist climate change caused ice melt could leave everyone running for the mountaintops but the actual measured evidence simply doesn’t bear out the scenario. If you dig deeper into the other effects of climate change you find the same things. This planet is a bit more resilient than we give it credit for.

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

Doug, it’s a pity we can only see the abstract of your citation. Google Scholar can often find complete papers even when the original source wants you to pay for the privilege. I’ll put it to work and post a link when I have a moment later, with any luck.

A couple of other things worry me about the abstract: “we extend the analysis of Douglas by an additional 25 years” sounds like one of those models skeptics love to tell us are unreliable; and “analyze revised data of Church and White” (revised how and by whom, we’re not told) sounds disconcertingly like cherry-picking.

Not wishing to jump to conclusions, though, so if my suspicions prove unfounded after I’ve read the paper I’ll acknowledge it here.

Of course it is. Sea level is going up, it has been going up for almost 20,000 years and 130m of sea level rise (that means a long term average of around 65cm per century when we’re scared shiteless of a 15-XXcm this century) and mankind has dealt with it all along. Deceleration means only the rise has slowed… at the same time SUV’s and coal fired power plants were becoming the rage. My perception of the 25 year thing was that they added in more recent measured data, not models but we’d need to see the paper to verify.

I’m not saying that warming couldn’t eventually melt ice and cause sea level rise I’m saying there’s no evidence that sea level rise has accelerated yet to this point, in fact just the opposite sea level rise is actually slower now than it was around 1900. I’m driving at a very specific point, this doesn’t tell us anything or bolster my skeptical view really(it’s indeed hard to prove a negative), but what it should give you is a framework of knowledge to judge what politicians and the media say. How does this knowledge of long term trends and deceleration apply when you hear people suggest that sea level rise is destroying islands or hurricane Katrina storm surge was worse, or as an IPCC leader stated that Global warming caused sea level rise has caused more deaths in the Japanese tsunami. How do they make assessments like considering the facts that in the modern period of CO2 use sea level rise has slowed? How do they know what sea level would have done in the absense of man, especially when the measured results have so far not really fit the model? Perhaps sea level would have continued rising at it’s previous pace and actually be higher due to some unknown mechanism. They depend on your ignorance, they’re pushing a cause, that’s my perception.

I like your UC Boulder link, I’ve had that as a favorite for years. They haven’t really updated it since about August of last year and I’m interested to see if it spikes or continues it’s slight deceleration. It’s very steady upward but if you squint hard enough there’s slight evidence of a leveling off a slight downward curve to the trend, granted it’s slow but it’s likely a similiar effect to what the paper above is describing.

I’ll give it a read and comment later. A slowing of sea level rise seems counterintuitive if ice loss is accelerating (as data show), because that runoff has to go somewhere. Be interesting to see if and how Houston and Dean address this.

Let me know what your thoughts are in the meantime.

Doug Hunter

#132

I’ll have to read it. It is very counterintuitive, especially when you consider all the evidence in favor of accelerated sea level rise including thermal expansion. I know some places are gaining mass as increased temperatures/humidity have enabled more snow but I thought those areas were dwarfed by others losing ice. Just eyeballing the wikipedia graph I can’t see the long term deceleration it looks like SLR turned upward around 1900-1910 and has been very steady ever since despite the fast growth of CO2. Perhaps a natural blip in sea level just preceded/coincided with the rise of industry and would have leveled off on it’s own…. I prefer measurements over speculation/models though.

Anyway, thanks for finding the link. Global warming is definitely something we need to be aware of, I just don’t see the evidence that it’s the catastrophe it’s made out to be based on the measurements to the point. Loss of habitat for wildlife, human overpopulation, how the heck to feed, house, and provide medical care for all of us. There are alot of issues facing humans where I think it’s easier and more straightforward to make progress. I was thinking the other day about the hysteria surrounding radiation in japan as well as the CO2. It made me consider that perhaps we have inordinate fears of things we can’t fully see or understand. It’s hard to confirm but radiation kills a mere handful of people on the planet, if any, in a given year. Radioactivity is natural and many place, especially near granite get heavey doses. At the same time automobiles kill tens of thousands ever single year just in this one country yet we all freak out and glue our eyes to the TV becuase a radiation detector picked up a minor trace somewhere on the California coast. My automobile detector picks up 2 vehicles in my driveway right now that are likely hundreds of thousands of times a greater hazard to me than Nuclear power. Just something to think about, don’t be afaid that’s how they get you.

Kevin

Dread,

I didn’t WIN anything. You still believe in AGW, don’t you?

I’ve explained most of the natural cycles to you. We know ‘Greenland’ was called green because it was much warmer before. Newfoundland is colder now and has gone through the same cyclic changes.

We know the sun is actually a variable star by 0.1%. We know of many existent cycles: total solar irradiance(TSI), the PDO(Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the AMO(Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, sunspot variation(at least five cycles from 11 years to 1200 years–that we know about), lack of sunspots means elevated cosmic rays which means additional cloud formation which means reflection of 20% of the sun’s rays which means additional cooling, El Ninos, La Ninas, ice ages, Maunder Minimum(one of many), info that CO2 has FOLLOWED warming for at least 800 years, and too many additional cycles to mention.

We know there was an explosion of life forms in the Cambrian Period when CO2 levels were 18x higher than today, and in the Jurassic period(when dinosaurs roamed) CO2 levels were as much as 9x higher.

But intelligent people like yourself are still clinging to the worn-out theory of AGW.

Never mind that over 700 scientist, members of the IPCC, and meteorologists have seen the light through the trees and have come to the conclusion that Global Warming and Cooling is a direct result of natural factors.

We know ‘Greenland’ was called green because it was much warmer before.

No, Erik the Red named it Greenland as a marketing strategy. And the southern part of Greenland, which Erik explored and settled in, actually is green, especially during the summer. Was then, is now.

We know the sun is actually a variable star by 0.1%. We know of many existent cycles…

Etc, etc, and so you keep saying. I know that solar cycles affect climate. You keep posting this stuff over and over again, yet you still haven’t been able, specifically, to explain the current divergence between global temperatures and solar activity.

We know there was an explosion of life forms in the Cambrian Period when CO2 levels were 18x higher than today, and in the Jurassic period(when dinosaurs roamed) CO2 levels were as much as 9x higher.

Humans and over 99% of the species in existence today were not around in the Cambrian and the Jurassic. We evolved in a cool climate and will be unlikely to survive in a hot world.

Never mind that over 700 scientist, members of the IPCC, and meteorologists have seen the light through the trees and have come to the conclusion that Global Warming and Cooling is a direct result of natural factors.

A much greater number than that disagree. Why do you only give credence to those who say what you want to be true?

“I’ll read and comment later” turned out to be a couple of days later, but I got to it.

Fascinating paper, and the visuals (graphs) helped a lot. I did Houston and Dean a disservice by suggesting they were modeling – they did use real-world data to extend their analysis of Douglas.

They do point out that there are a lot of factors affecting sea level readings – postglacial rebound, tectonic activity, satellite orbital drift and decay, and it wasn’t clear to me that the authors had developed a consistent recalibrating system for their data which accounted for everything.

I’ve noticed that the acceleration in sea level rise is more obvious the further back in time you go. If you look at the first graph on page 2 (Fig. 1), you’ll see that it suddenly kicks into high gear about 1925, but then stays quite steady at that rate (i.e. no acceleration, as the paper argues, although unless I’m missing or misinterpreting something, the authors’ interpretation of their own graph is way off-beam). There even seems to be a tiny tapering off in the last few years, which would probably be more obvious on a graph covering a shorter period.

The no-acceleration argument is also consistent with Fig. 4 on page 5, which is a classic bell curve.

Hmm. I think it’s noteworthy, and eminently good science, that Houston and Dean do not engage in Kevin-style hubris and trumpet their paper as final proof that AGW doesn’t exist. Instead, they acknowledge the fundamental importance that their findings don’t jibe with the known and observed increased temperatures, ocean thermal expansion and glacial melt: “It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”.

Kevin

Dread,

No problem. You’ll have another chance to delete me if you don’t like this. Of course, Jill or Don would love to hear the real facts. It’s interesting you never SAID that you didn’t delete what I had written.

Eric the Red NEVER had a marketing strategy. Vikings weren’t real concerned with marketing strategies, but you already know that.

It doesn’t sound like you know why they named it ‘Greenland’ before at all.

Why have you never explained why there is NO divergence between global temperatures and solar activity??

Pure trash about the Cambrian and Jurassic Periods. Everything you believe about AGW is based solely on CO2–not humans. You can see from the Carboniferous graph that temperatures were far from cool most of the time.

A much greater number of scientists who study climate for a living exceeds 700??? Hey, they probably live on the ‘left’ coast, right?

I might give you another chance NOT to delete my message. Your call. Better make the right one…

Kevin, I didn’t delete or do anything else to your comment. In fact, I only just figured out what the hell you were talking about.

There are two possible reasons why your comment might have appeared to stop in mid-flow:
1. You accidentally hit the ‘post comment’ button before you meant to;
2. You were trying to code a link and messed it up.

It’s not the spam software, as that would have blocked your entire comment, not just part of it.

I’ve just been into the editing tool (didn’t have access to it from the computer I was on earlier) and there’s no garbled HTML in your comment – it simply cuts off in mid-sentence. So I can only assume this was a case of premature posting. It happens to all of us at one time or another.

Again, why you should think that I or Blogcritics is trying to silence you when you’ve been able to post a voluminous amount of comments without hindrance is beyond me. Are there two men in suits and sunglasses sitting in a black car outside your house as well?

Eric the Red NEVER had a marketing strategy. Vikings weren’t real concerned with marketing strategies, but you already know that.

It doesn’t sound like you know why they named it ‘Greenland’ before at all.

You are beyond belief. I POSTED A LINK TO THE NORSE SAGA WHICH GIVES ERIK’S ACCOUNT, IN HIS OWN WORDS, OF HOW HE CAME TO NAME GREENLAND. Here is the relevant quote:

‘In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, “Because,” said he, “men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.”’

From the horse’s mouth, Kev…

You can see from the Carboniferous graph that temperatures were far from cool most of the time.

One, the Cambrian, the Carboniferous and the Jurassic occurred tens of millions of years apart from one another and two, I never said that it was cool. I said that just because the lifeforms that existed then flourished in the hot conditions doesn’t mean that the lifeforms which exist now will.

A much greater number of scientists who study climate for a living exceeds 700??? Hey, they probably live on the ‘left’ coast, right?

I might give you another chance NOT to delete my message. Your call. Better make the right one…

Grow up, Kevin…

Kevin

Dread,

Sorry, but those two reasons don’t fit at all:

1)If I accidentally hit the ‘post comment button’ it wouldn’t have just printed part of the column, beause I had it all typed in
2)I was NOT trying to put ANY link in, so I couldn’t have messed it up
3)I actually tried to put the same comments in twice; deletions both times

You don’t want me to tell you what they say about ASSUME…

As soon as you give a legit reason why Blogcritics is trying NOT to silence me, you might make sense. Answer this: can you or your software erase some or all of a response?

I told you once that Eric NEVER had a marketing strategy in mind for Greenland. How many hundreds of years was Eric around before they settled Greenland? Have you been up there lately?

Kevin, I assure you that I have done nothing to any of your comments. The only reason Chris Rose or I would have done so was if you had violated the comments policy, which to your credit you have never done, as far as I know.

I know that the issue wasn’t HTML, because the bad coding would have shown up in the editing tool. All I could see, however, was plain text.

There’s also nothing caught in the spam trap – and if it had been, you would have seen a message on your screen alerting you to the fact. So I don’t know what happened. All I can suggest is that you try posting the comment again and see what happens.

I told you once that Eric NEVER had a marketing strategy in mind for Greenland.

I showed you a quote in his own words explaining why he named it Greenland. He wanted to entice people to settle there. That’s marketing.

If you were to claim that there were no such things as elephants, and I then showed you a photograph of an elephant, would you then continue to insist that elephants didn’t exist?

How many hundreds of years was Eric around before they settled Greenland?

The first Viking settlers arrived in 986 AD, four years after Erik the Red explored it. (And the Inuit had been living there quite happily for thousands of years before that.)

doc, that’s not greenland! that’s green land! but it’s not greenland! i refuse to believe the photographic evidence.

Kevin

Dread,

Did you read what I said? Can your software erase some or all of the response? Are you responsible for that software in any way?

That’s quite a stretch–saying that Eric wanted to “entice” people to settle in Greenland. Was this some sort of political move…in 986 AD???

You err about marketing. As a Chemical Engineer for fire retardants in North America, we marketed fire retardants. For no other reason but to make money. Eric had NOTHING to do with marketing.

A photograph can be retouched. Same with an elephant. It can be retouched where it might not really be an elephant. That doesn’t mean that elephants don’t really exist. In fact, just last week the local TV station(WLOS) showed numerous shots of a Sasquatch crossing the road in upper North Carolina. Looked like a Sasquatch. It was big, and it was hairy. But was it a real Sasquatch?

It’s just the end of winter now. I’m afraid you have no pictures of anything green from Greenland–that is if the pictures were of Greenland in the first place.

Get grounded, Dread. We never had any disagreement about whether it was hot anywhere. The whole point was about elevated CO2, and it was much higher back then. Many life forms will flourish in warm conditions. That’s why if there’s any global warming from natural causes, it’s usually a boon to life.

I looked at your link to the ‘world’. Your absolutely right–many people and scientists were convinced that AGW was actually occurring. But look at the time frame. All of these organizations were under the impression that AGW was occurring.

Few of these organizations feel that way now. Those >700 specialized scientists were all from the last three years. If you look carefully, almost all your listed organizations who stated their opinions stated them from 1995 to 2005. They don’t have the same opinion now for some reason.

Why don’t you answer some questions? I plan on reinserting my relevant comments shortly. You know, after the ‘…accounts for…’ before I was deleted.

Of course the comments tool gives me the capability to delete all or part of comments. It wouldn’t be much use as comments editing software if it didn’t.

Was this some sort of political move…in 986 AD???

So politics didn’t exist in the year 986? When was it invented, then?

A photograph can be retouched. Same with an elephant.

Are you saying that I wrote the quote from Erik the Red’s Saga myself? You can look it up for yourself if you like. Most decent university libraries should have a copy. (But please be sure to let me know which university library you’re going to check at, so that I have plenty of time to place a forged copy on their shelves.)

I’m afraid you have no pictures of anything green from Greenland–that is if the pictures were of Greenland in the first place.

Again, you can quite easily check for yourself. Just go to Google Images and type “Greenland” into the search box.

Many life forms will flourish in warm conditions. That’s why if there’s any global warming from natural causes, it’s usually a boon to life.

As I pointed out before (one more to add to the approximately 100,000 points of mine you have ignored), humans and most inhabitants of their ecosystem did not evolve on a warm Earth. Your attitude that we will all be just fine in a warm world is just stupid.

Few of these organizations feel that way now. Those >700 specialized scientists were all from the last three years.

And as I pointed out some time ago, the vast majority of your guys do not specialize in climate science.

If you look carefully, almost all your listed organizations who stated their opinions stated them from 1995 to 2005.

Fine. If you want a more recent census, here you go. Although you’ll probably just move the goalposts again.

I plan on reinserting my relevant comments shortly. You know, after the ‘…accounts for…’ before I was deleted.

Still waiting…

Kevin

Dread,

I didn’t WIN anything. You still believe in AGW, don’t you?

I’ve explained most of the natural cycles to you. We know ‘Greenland’ was called green because it was much warmer before. Newfoundland also colder now and has gone through the same cyclic changes.

Were did you get that from–that “Are you saying that I wrote the quote from Erik the Red’s Saga myself?” I said that no money was involved and certainly no ‘marketing’. It sounds like you assumed a few things anyway. Again you would not give me a date as to when those pictures were taken–if they were from Greenland.
I’ve been doing some thinking about this. Perhaps you are right! Eric was right about Greenland being green back in 986 AD. And he probably did get some people to move out there. Unfortunately, there’s likely only Inuits there now because of the cold temperatures. I kept wondering, why would Eric lie about the climate? Not likely.

What ever you the impression that Eric EVER had ‘politics’ in mind in 986 AD? Your time line about any recent census was woefully inadequate. It doesn’t look like too many scientists agreed with AGW. My statement about timing is right on.

There are NO points you made that I have ignored. There are some you ‘said’ were stupid, however.

With a cycle time of 2241 yrs, the Landsheidt cycle resulted in earth’s cooling in 1400 AD; with cycle time of 232 yrs, a cycle(name?) cooled in 1922; with a cycle time of 208 yrs, the Suess cycle cooled in 1898, with a cycle time of 88 years, the Gleissburg cycle cooled in 1986; there were no major affects from schwabe and Hale.

Some of the more famous climate changes with changes are: The Damon Minima (AD 1880-1930) resulted in a gobal temp 0.5 oC lower (Jones, 1988); the Dalton Minima (AD 1795-1825) was the “Year Without Summer” in 1813; the Maunder Minima (AD 1650-1710) resulted in the Little Ice Age, Global Temp 1-2 oC lower; the Sporer minima (AD 1420-1540), resulted in the Second Little Ice Age event; the Wolf minima (AD 1280-1340) resulted in [The Great Drought].

Other cycles are too numerous. Some are El Ninos, La Ninas, ice ages, Maunder Minimum (one of many), info that CO2 has FOLLOWED warming for at least 800 years, the arth’s tilt and wobble, and many, many others. It should be mentioned 4.5 billion years ago sun was ca. 8% smaller and ca. 3 % less luminous so solar constant was ca. 25 % less. As sun converts Hydrogen to Helium, the luminosity will continue to increase over next 4 by (Walter & Barry, 1991)

[Solar Variation] can be accessed through the internet. Points 1,4,7,and 12 are particularly interesting. I’m sure you can access it. You will see the myriad of cycles the earth goes through are for a reason.

We won’t mention the 1500 year climate cycle mentioned in ancient Roman writings, Egypt’s early Nile flood records, or the ancient Chinese court documents detailing climate cycles. We know there was an explosion of life forms in the Cambrian Period when CO2 levels were 18x higher than today, and in the Jurassic period (when dinosaurs roamed) CO2 levels were as much as 9x higher.

But intelligent people like yourself are still clinging to the worn-out theory of AGW.

Never mind that over 700 scientists, members of the IPCC, and meteorologists have seen the light through the trees and have come to the conclusion that Global Warming and Cooling is a direct result of natural factors.

Interestingly, the alleged ‘culprit’–CO2–accounts for 1% of all gasesn the earth’s atmosphere. Of that sliver, only 3% is created through anthropologic means. CO2 is absolutely necessary for all living plants on the earth, which immensely outnumber the animals on earth.

Unfortunately, your statement “…the vast majority of your guys do not specialize in climate science” was quite wrong. All of them work and provide data for the IPCC. I seriously doubt you know each one well enough to even know that info in the first place. You can also access anything from [Mark Morano]. He isn’t a scientist, but reports what they say. And yes, he talks about scientists who believe in AGW as well.

One would have to wonder what the chances are of all those cycles coming into play and allowing earth to reside in a stable Habitable Zone. The chances so minimal, they’re considered negligible. The chances God might have had in that creation? It looks like 100% to me.

zingzing

“The chances so minimal, they’re considered negligible.”

that’s why they recently found a couple such planets on some of our nearest neighboring stars. chances are, nay, the reality is, that there are millions and millions of planets in their stars’ habitable zones.

Were did you get that from–that “Are you saying that I wrote the quote from Erik the Red’s Saga myself?”

You said that a photo of an elephant could be faked. I took that to mean you were also implying the quote was fake.

Again you would not give me a date as to when those pictures were taken–if they were from Greenland.

If you’ve already decided that they aren’t, then I can’t help you. I’ve already pointed out that you can quite easily check for yourself.

Unfortunately, there’s likely only Inuits there now because of the cold temperatures.

According to the CIA World Factbook, 89% of the population is Inuit, but 11% are of European (mostly Danish) extraction.

What ever you the impression that Eric EVER had ‘politics’ in mind in 986 AD?

Nothing. You were the one who brought that up. But now you mention it: a vigorous population of Vikings, with Erik as their leader… sounds like politics to me.

Your time line about any recent census was woefully inadequate. It doesn’t look like too many scientists agreed with AGW.

No, you are just willfully ignoring facts that you don’t want to be true.

There are NO points you made that I have ignored.

There are at least four just in your above comment.

One, the Greenland photos, which you don’t want to believe are of Greenland because they disprove your claim that there’s nothing green there.

Two, I’ve challenged you several times to explain why global temperatures in recent decades do NOT correlate with solar activity. As I’ve said, I know perfectly well that solar cycles affect climate on Earth, so you’re preaching to the choir with your dense paragraph of sources above. But I’ve also pointed out that arguing for the sun affecting climate in the past does not cut it. (Analogy alert: Just because forest fires have started naturally in the past does not mean that humans cannot cause forest fires.)

Two, you’ve shrugged off the repeated citations I’ve provided showing that the vast majority of climate scientists, and their publications, agree that AGW is real. You prefer to ignore all but the people who agree with you. (Analogy alert: It’s as if 48 out of 50 tsunami warning beacons are transmitting data alerting you to a tsunami heading for the coastline you live on, but you’re only paying attention to the data from the two beacons which did not detect a tsunami. Stupid much?)

Four, you disregard my point that humans did not evolve in the warm climate of the Cambrian: a hot Earth might have worked for a trilobite, but it won’t for us.

Interestingly, the alleged ‘culprit’–CO2–accounts for 1% of all gasesn the earth’s atmosphere. Of that sliver, only 3% is created through anthropologic means.

As you were at pains to point out a few days ago (while miserably failing to understand your own point), the natural carbon cycle is more or less in balance. However, humans are adding billions of tons of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere every year in an unnatural way. (Analogy alert: The way you want this to work is akin to gradually adding bottle after bottle of chlorine to a fishpond and expecting none of the fish to die.)

your statement “…the vast majority of your guys do not specialize in climate science” was quite wrong. All of them work and provide data for the IPCC.

From your comment #92, in which you introduced these 700 scientists (some of whom aren’t scientists): “Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists” [my emphasis]. They are on that list because they dissent from the IPCC, not because they work for it.

(Incidentally, that last link should neatly disprove your accusation that I’m afraid to look at anti-AGW sources.)

One would have to wonder what the chances are of all those cycles coming into play and allowing earth to reside in a stable Habitable Zone. The chances so minimal, they’re considered negligible. The chances God might have had in that creation? It looks like 100% to me.

Off-topic, and an argument from incredulity to boot. Yet one more logical fallacy to add to your impressive and ever-expanding repertoire.

Kevin

Dread,

‘Faked’ is your word, not mine.

Whether the Greenland photos were altered is still to be resolved. You still haven’t mentioned what year they were from.

You forget that the Vikings lived during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 AD). A four hundred year epoch that ruins the global whiners’ claims that today’s climate is the warmest ever. And I showed how it was associated with a sunspot event.

Even the CIA factbook says most Greenlanders are Inuit? Go figure…

1) If those photos are real, is Greenland green for, what, 3 days a year?

2) I’ve shown you how earth temperatures DO correlate to climate. Oh wait, you probably looked none of that up, did you?

4) Hey Einstein, the warm earth during the Cambrian was around the equator. I’ve told you before, the equator’s always warm. the CO2 concentration is essentially the same around the planet.

The amount of CO2 on the earth is always the same. Just during earlier periods the amount in the atmosphere was higher (vs the sea). How is the burning of fossil fuels unnatural? When it makes its way to the surface, it gives off its CO2 by biodegradation.

You err again. You can still work for the IPCC, and dissent with their AGW policy.

When did I ever say the 3 guys you mentioned work for the IPCC? Do you know them?

I never said that ‘you were afraid to look at dissenting sources’. I said you simply did not believe their data.

The last paragraph was NOT off topic. It was something you just haven’t considered.

And are you still going to say you were NOT responsible for deletions even though you ADMIT that you can delete some/all of a comment? The last comment I had was at first halfway deleted. Then the whole thing was deleted. Could your program have deleted something without your knowledge?

You have obviously not looked up anything on Marc Morano, Solar Variability, sunspots effecting climate, or any of the other variables I mentioned effecting climate.

As Comments Editor, you’ve already got my e-mail. Heck, you could get it from a number of other sources. Yet you refuse to give me yours, because you will not read dissenting information. How sad.

Wow, you can’t even comment on drivel??? Can you ever even make a good comment?

Have a nice day!

zingzing

kevin, here is a map of greenland, clearly showing the areas where it is “green” and the areas that have ice on them. there’s an airport up there, so i’d guess it’s not from hundreds of years ago, but some time in the recent past.

that’s not true at all. care to back that up with a source? or is it just your list of 700 non-scientists and scientists who may or may not study climate and who may or may not work for the ipcc? do you really think 700 dissenters makes a dent in the amount of scientists who believe that agw is true?

“As Comments Editor, you’ve already got my e-mail. Heck, you could get it from a number of other sources. Yet you refuse to give me yours, because you will not read dissenting information. How sad.”

ever get the idea that he simply doesn’t trust you with his email address? you do come off as somewhat insane. also, you’ve been invited to put your information up here, yet you refuse. why? you should by now know how to create a hyperlink. do so, if you’re not just blowing hot air.

Glenn Contrarian

Doc and zing –

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Kevin’s made up his mind that no matter what, he’s not going to agree with you about AGW. The seas could rise 100 feet, wipe out most of the port cities of the world, the ice caps could disappear, and all the scientists of the world – at least the non-kooks and the ones not working for Big Oil – could present him with all their peer-reviewed studies proving AGW…

…and he still wouldn’t believe it. As long as there’s somebody who tells him otherwise – no matter how obviously false is the lie that’s fed him (see Fox News) – he’s going to argue that AGW is some kind of socialist plot.

In other words, the two of you are wasting your time.

zingzing

“In other words, the two of you are wasting your time.”

that’s abundantly clear. and it’s obvious that kevin believes in mystical thinking and has little time for evidence or logic. but that’s what makes it fun. you ever played a game on easy level?

i’ve been reading this thread because i liked both doc’s epic takedown and kevin’s utter refusal to stop making a fool of himself. props to both. i am entertained. but it looks like doc has grown tired of the game. which is sad. i think it reached an apex of sorts when kevin thought doc was censoring him. such an amazing, pathetic display.

Kevin

Dread,

Inhofe Debunks So-Called ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming (2009)

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, delivered a more than two-hour floor speech on October 26, debunking fears of man-made global warming. Below is an excerpt of his remarks debunking the notion of a “consensus” on man-made global warming fears. (For full speech – click here: )

Senator Inhofe Speech Excerpt:

Essential Point # 4: Debunking “consensus” The fourth and final essential point deals with how the media and climate doomsters insist that there is an overwhelming scientific “consensus” of man-made global warming. The notion of a “consensus” is carefully manufactured for political, financial and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain fully what “consensus” they are referring to. Is it a “consensus” that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a “consensus” that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.

While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal this is an illusion. Climate skeptics — the emerging silent majority of scientists — receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.

On the other side of the climate debate, you have an comparatively well funded group of scientists and activists who participate in UN conferences, receiving foundation monies and international government support and also receive fawning media treatment.

The number of skeptics at first glance may appear smaller, but the skeptics are increasingly becoming vocal and turning the tables on the Goliath that has become the global warming fear industry.

Key components of the manufactured “consensus” fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But what you don’t hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.

Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a “consensus” global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.

Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does “not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype.” In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.

In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed “Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory.”

“Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus,'” according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics’ finds no “consensus” on global warming. Here is an excerpt: “As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world’s most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the “science grapevine”, arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete.” The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders “to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change.”

There are frequently claims that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world’s top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.

According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:

“Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species.”

Many of the so-called “hundreds” of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as “expert reviewers” are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC “expert reviewers” but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.

New study finds IPCC “consensus” an “illusion”

An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.”

The new study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.”

Let me repeat the key point here: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

In an August 13, 2007 letter, Khandekar lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.'”

Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.”

“Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.

Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science.

Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN:

“I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.”

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

As if to further cement these allegations, the UN allowed a Greenpeace activist to co-author a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.

The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.

Steve McIntyre, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.

McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”

UN activist scientists hype data

As you continue to scratch beneath the surface of the alleged global warming “consensus” more discoveries await.

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007.

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007:

“The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained.

He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

Kyoto represents ‘authentic global governance’

Politics appears to be the fuel that runs the UN IPCC process from the scientists to the bureaucrats to the delegates and all the way to many of the world leaders involved in it. And another key to the motivation of the UN was explained by former French President Jacques Chirac in 2000:

Chirac said Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

These growing critiques of the politicized IPCC process have been echoed by the UK’s Lord Nigel Lawson – former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Member of the House of Lords Committee that reviewed the IPCC process.

Lawson called for the abolishment of the UN’s IPCC process.

“I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the issue of climate change…” Lawson said in 2005.

Extravagantly Funded Warming Crusade Follows Ice Age Fears

The huge organizational and funding advantage that proponents of climate alarmism enjoy over scientific skeptics has led to a pretty elaborate and impressive façade of “consensus.” Many climate skeptics have been excluded from key roles in the politicized IPCC process and largely ignored by the media unless they are being demonized as “flat Earther’s” or accused of being part of a well funded industry campaign. But in reality, it is the climate fear peddlers that enjoy an overwhelming funding advantage over skeptics.

Since the late 1980’s when global warming fears rose out of the scorched frost of the 1970’s coming ice age scare, an international organized effort and tens of billions of dollars have been spent promoting the warming fear gravy train.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter estimates proponents of global warming fears worldwide have received over $50 billion from international sources and the U.S. over the last two decades.

“In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.

The U.S. alone spends over $5 billion a year on research directly or indirectly related to global warming. Adding to these totals of funding man-made climate fears are large foundations like the Heinz Foundation, international governments, the United Nations, worldwide universities and individuals like billionaires like Richard Branson, and George Soros.

In fact, if you want to get a study funded today on anything from suicides to butterflies, researchers are finding that they better somehow link the issue to global warming and it will increase your chances of securing funding dramatically.

Meteorologist James Spann suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the “big cash grab” of money flowing to proponents of man-made climate fears. I previously noted that NASA’s James Hansen received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation.

“Billions of dollars of grant money are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story,” Spann wrote on January 18, 2007.

The imbalance of money between the promoters of climate fears and skeptics is so large that one 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded ALL of the money the groups skeptical of climate fears allegedly received from ExxonMobil over the past two decades.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper noted my campaign funding sources in a program just this week, but he failed to investigate the huge financial advantage proponents of man-made global warming have over skeptics.

Hundreds of skeptical scientists to be heard in upcoming Senate report

Later this fall, my staff on the EPW committee will also be releasing a report detailing the hundreds of scientists, many of them affiliated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, who have spoken out recently to oppose climate alarmism. The report will feature the scientists — many of them who have finally had it with claims that “all scientists agree” — in their own words. The report will be complete with the scientists’ biographies and web links for further reading.

This new research and the hysteria created by the UN, Gore and the media have prompted frustrated scientists to finally fight back in the name of a rational approach to science.

Climate rationalists or skeptics do not need to engage in smoke and mirrors to state their case and we will be offering the world a chance to read and decide for themselves, unfiltered from the increasingly activist and shrill lens of media outlets like NBC News, Newsweek, Time, CBS News, ABC News, CNN.

I have stood on this floor for years detailing all the unfolding science that debunked climate alarm. These scientific developments of 2007 are the result of years or decades of hard work by scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears. Finally reaching the point where we can watch the alarm crumble is very satisfying.

Ahhhh, unbelievers! A couple of articles come out by non-scientists, and the left jumps onto the bandwagon of ‘it must be true, because someone here on the ‘left coast’ thinks it is!’ Nevermind that he is no scientist, or that he’s never read correct articles about climate change.

Ohhhh, the agony!

Amazing that blogcritics.org has left no place for me to place a column refuting everything the ‘left’ believes.

Wait. Evidently everyone is scared to give their e-mail out, in fear that it might be attacked!

But, all one has to do is go to Redstate, ChristianCoalition, TownHall, Publius…you name it to get good info. Will they be man enough to do it??

Kev, you couldn’t have demonstrated the truth of Mr Mooney’s article more exquisitely or promptly if you’d tried…

I wouldn’t worry about not having a voice. Having perused a couple of your articles and comment threads at NolanChart, in which you demonstrate the same intellectual dishonesty and lack of critical thinking ability that you’ve shown here, it’s clear that Blogcritics isn’t the only place you’re prepared to make a fool of yourself.

Kevin

Dread,

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

You didn’t believe that those two guys were non-scientists and non-technical people. I guess we know what classification you’re in as well.

Oh, why would I be worried about having a voice in Blogcritics? It’s likely you know something you’re not telling me. No problem–you’re loss. Especially when you can find my latest with ease.

Whereas your own brand of drive-by snarkiness is nothing but constructive and helpful, eh, El B?

Kevin, James Inhofe isn’t a scientist either (his BA is in economics according to this), yet you set great store by his pronouncements.

Couldn’t be because his views just so happen to align with yours, could it?

Kevin

Dread & Bicho,

It was dropped earlier, but Dread started up again. I wonder what he’s so worried about?

Inhofe’s no scientist, but he’s an active US senator who prints exactly what other IPCC scientists have said concerning AGW.

I’m afraid Dread’s posts don’t even come close.

Let’s see, I’ve been deleted from writing posts twice, have been ignored by VP Asher about how I can submit a column twice, and you’ve refused to read my recent post in another web forum several times.

What exactly would one call that? Even though there’s no hard and fast rule prohibiting Dread from giving his e-mail, he refuses to do it.